15/11/2025
2025 YLR 841 (لاہور)
مسئلہ: دعویٰ برائے اعلان، مستقل امتناع و منسوخیِ میمورنڈم آف گفٹ (gift)
فریقین: S. AKMAL (مرحوم) بذریعہ قانونی ورثاء (درخواست گزاران) بمقابلہ Model Town Cooperative Housing Society وغیرہ (مدعا علیہان)
Civil Revision No.224476 of 2018 — فیصلہ:
06-05-2022
(لاہور ہائیکورٹ، جسٹس عاصم حفیظ)
---
1۔ کیس کا پس منظر (Background — حقائق کا تسلسل)
مرنے والے: سید اکمل (متوفی) — وفات 2005۔
اثاثہ: پلاٹ/رہائشی یونٹ جو Model Town Cooperative Housing Society میں تھا۔
مطالبہ کنندگان: مرحوم کی اہلیہ اور ایک بیٹا — انہوں نے اپنی قانونی وارثت کے حصہ کا دعویٰ کیا۔
مدعا علیہان: مرحوم کا دوسرا بیٹا اور بیٹی — ان کا دعویٰ تھا کہ مرحوم نے 1962 میں زبانی گفٹ کیا اور 1974 میں اس کی تصدیق/acknowledgement بطور memorandum of gift (بعد میں رجسٹرڈ) ہوئی، اسی بنیاد پر انہیں واحد قانونی مالکان کہا گیا۔
اضافی دستاویزات: ایک خط مورخہ 16/17-9-1995 (Excise & Taxation کو) اور ایک خط مورخہ 29-8-1998 (Housing Society کو) ریکارڈ میں آئے۔ نیچے دی گئی عدالتوں نے مختلف انداز سے ان دستاویزات کی بنیاد پر فیصلے دیے۔
---
2۔ متعلقہ دفعات اور ان کی تشریح (Sections — Short Definitions)
Specific Relief Act, 1877 — S.42: suit for declaration — عدالت سے درخواست کہ کوئی مخصوص حق یا حیثیت تسلیم کی جائے۔
Specific Relief Act, 1877 — S.39: cancellation of instruments — اگر کوئی تحریری دستاویز fraudulent، void یا غیر مؤثر ہو تو اسے منسوخ کروایا جا سکتا ہے۔
Specific Relief Act, 1877 — S.54: permanent injunction — عدالت مستقل طور پر احکام امتناعی جاری کر سکتی ہے تاکہ خلافِ قانون عمل روکا جا سکے۔
(نوٹ: اوپر دی گئی شقوں کا مقصد وہ قانونی علاج بتانا ہے جو plaintiff نے مانگا — یعنی اعلان، منسوخی اور مستقل امتناع۔)
---
3۔ فریقین کے مواقف (Parties’ Versions — مؤقف تفصیل سے)
درخواست گزاران (بیوہ اور ایک بیٹا)
دعویٰ: متوفی کا حقِ ملکیت تھا؛ بعض قانونی وارثوں کو بلاوجہ خارج کر کے ملکیت دوسرے ورثاء (مدعا علیہان) کو منتقل نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
ثبوت: میمورنڈم آف گفٹ، مبینہ گفٹ کے حوالہ سے شکوک و شبہات موجود ہیں؛ مدعا علیہان نے زبانی گفٹ ثابت نہیں کیا؛ بعض دستاویزات (مثلاً 1995 کا خط) واضح کرتے ہیں کہ مرنے والے نے 1995 تک اس جائیداد پر قبضہ و استعمال برقرار رکھا — اس سے تحفہ کا دعویٰ متزلزل ہے۔
دعویٰ فراڈ: مدعیان نے عدالت میں دعویٰ کیا کہ گفٹ تحریر/رٹرن کے ذریعے بنا کر ورثاء کو دھوکہ دیا گیا؛ burden of proof beneficiary پر ہے جب fraud کی شکایت ہو۔
مدعا علیہان (دوسرا بیٹا اور بیٹی)
دعویٰ: 1962 میں تحفہ دیا گیا؛ 1974 میں اس کی تحریری تصدیق/acknowledgement ہوئی (mem. of gift) اور بعد ازاں رجسٹریشن ہوئی؛ اس لیے وہ جانشینِ ملکیت ہیں۔
دفاع: چونکہ memorandum رجسٹرڈ ظاہر ہوتا ہے، تو اس کی قانونی حیثیت معتبر سمجھی گئی — lower courts نے اسی بنیاد پر فیصلہ کیا۔
---
4۔ زیریں عدالتیں — ٹرائل اور فرسٹ اپیلٹ (Lower Courts’ Findings)
ٹرائل کورٹ اور فرسٹ اپیلٹ کورٹ نے (اصل ریکارڈ کے مطابق) memorandum of gift اور متعلقہ دستاویزات کو weight دیا اور درخواست گزاران کا دعویٰ خارج کیا؛ نتیجہ یہ ہوا کہ مدعا علیہان کو ملکیت تسلیم کر لی گئی۔
اپیلٹ کورٹ خصوصاً 29-08-1998 کے خط اور میمورنڈم کو بصورتِ ریکارڈ evidence کے طور پر دیکھا اور بنیاد بنا کر فیصلہ دیا۔
لیکن دونوں عدالتوں نے درج ذیل عناصر پر کافی جانچ نہیں کی: (i) مبینہ زبانی گفٹ کا الگ اور مضبوط ثبوت، (ii) memorandum کی ex*****on and attestation کا براہِ راست proof/original، (iii) اگر original دستاویز موجود نہ ہو تو secondary evidence کی قانونی شرائط کی پابندی، (iv) تنازعِ fraud کی موجودگی میں beneficiary پر بڑھا ہوا بوجھِ ثبوت۔
---
5۔ ہائی کورٹ کے مشاہدات و مفصل دلائل (High Court — Key Observations)
A. زبانی گفٹ (Oral Gift) — ثبوت کا معیار
عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ اگر بنیاد زبانی گفٹ ہے تو اس زبانی لین دین کو علیحدہ اور قوی انداز میں ثابت کرنا لازم ہے۔ صرف بعد ازاں رجسٹرڈ memorandum پر انحصار کافی نہیں۔
یہاں کوئی credible witness یا documentary proof پیش نہ کیا گیا جو 1962 میں ہوئی alleged oral gift کی تصدیق کرے۔ ملازم کا بتانا کہ وہ 1964 سے کام کر رہا تھا (جبکہ gift 1962 کی بتائی گئی) نے مدعا علیہان کے دعوے کو کمزور کیا۔
نتیجہ: زبانی گفٹ ثابت نہ ہوا → memorandum کی بنیاد متزلزل رہی۔
Posted by Legal Luminaries
B. دستاویزات کی admissibility اور exhibition کا تقاضا
29-08-1998 کا خط عدالت کے سامنے formal طور پر exhibited (i.e., بطور Exhibit) نہیں کیا گیا؛ اپیلٹ کورٹ نے اس خط کو بغیر admissibility کی जांच کے بیس بنا کر استعمال کیا — ہائی کورٹ نے اسے غلط قرار دیا۔
اصل memorandum of gift پیش نہ کی گئی؛ صرف certified copy یا secondary evidence لائی گئی مگر secondary evidence کے لیے Qanun-e-Shahadat اور قواعد کے تحت ناگزیر شرائط (جیسے original کا عدمِ دستیاب ہونا، دلیل برائے loss یا destruction، یا گواہان کی غیر موجودگی کا justification) پوری نہیں کی گئیں۔
عدالتی اصول: دستاویز کا مفاد تبھی پروف بنے گا جب یا تو original پیش ہو یا secondary evidence کے تمام تقاضے قانونی طور پر پورے کیے جائیں۔ یہاں وہ تقاضے پورے نہ ہوئے۔
C. تحریری جواب (Written Statement) میں عدمِ دعویٰ (Failure to plead)
مدعا علیہان نے اپنی written-statement میں 1962 کے زبانی gift کا ذکر ہی نہیں کیا؛ یہ ایک fatal pleading defect ہے کیونکہ بنیادی cause of action/defence جو case کا مرکزی ستون ہے، اسے لازماً plead کرنا چاہئے تھا۔
ہائی کورٹ نے کہا: اگر underlying transaction (oral gift) کو تحریری فائل میں کبھی تسلیم یا بیان ہی نہ کیا جائے تو بعد میں memorandum کی بنیاد پر دفاع قائم کرنا قابلِ قبول نہیں۔
D. ex*****on اور attestation کا فقدان
memorandum allegedly witnessed by one person — مگر وہ attesting witness پیش نہ ہوا؛ deed-writer یا sub-registrar کی تصدیق بھی ریکارڈ نہیں۔ secondary evidence کے تحت ex*****on کی proof نہ ہونے کے سبب یہ memorandum اپنی probative force کھو بیٹھا۔
اصول: ex*****on کا ثبوت تبھی مانا جاتا جب attesting witness یا other statutory proof پیش ہو، یا اگر وہ گواہ فوت/غائب ہو تو اس کی غیر موجودگی ثابت کی جائے۔
E. تنازعِ فراڈ (Allegation of Fraud) اور burden of proof
مدعیان نے fraud کا دعویٰ کیا — جب fraud کا سوال ہو تو فائدہ بخلاف عام صورت کے، جو beneficiary ہے اس پر بھاری بوجھِ ثبوت آتا ہے کہ وہ تحفہ genuine ہے۔ مدعا علیہان یہ بوجھ پورا نہیں کر سکے۔
مزید، 1995 کے خط میں متوفی نے property-tax کے بارے میں اعتراض لکھا — اس سے معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ متوفی نے 1995 تک جائیداد پر قبضہ جاری رکھا تھا؛ اگر gift 1962 و memorandum 1974 کے بعد corpus منتقل ہو گیا ہوتا تو وہ 1995 میں taxation سے متعلق اعتراض کیوں کرے؟ یہ inconsistency gift کی سچائی پر سوال اٹھاتی ہے۔
F. جاندار فطرتی توقع (Ordinary human conduct) کا تقاضا
ہائی کورٹ نے فریقین کے طرزِ عمل کو بھی نوٹ کیا: عام طور پر ورثاء کو بالکل غیر متوقع طور پر خارج کرنا مخصوص اور ٹھوس اسباب کے بغیر قابلِ قبول نہیں۔ beneficiaries کو یہ ثابت کرنا تھا کہ exclusion کا معقول سبب تھا — وہ ناکام رہے۔
Posted by Legal Luminaries
G. locus standi اور limitation issues
مدعا علیہان کا مؤقف تھا کہ donor نے lifetime میں اعتراض نہیں کیا → اس بنیاد پر plaintiffs کی challenge time-barred یا locus-less ہو سکتی ہے۔ ہائی کورٹ نے تحقیق کی: plaintiffs نے succession application کے بعد ہی اس gift کا علم پایا اور فوراً challenge کیا — لہٰذا limitation کا کوئی مسٔلہ نہیں بنتا۔ مزید، fraud کی صورت میں limitation کا اطلاق مختلف ہوتا ہے۔
---
6۔ ثبوتی (evidentiary) مسائل — مفصل تجزیہ
یہ کیس بنیادی طور پر ثبوت (evidence) کے چیلنجز پر کھڑا تھا۔ ذیل میں بنیادی ثبوتی نکتے اور عدالت کی reasoning دی جا رہی ہے:
1. اصل بمقابلہ ثانوی شہادت (Original vs Secondary Evidence):
اصل memorial/acknowledgement کی non-production کا سبب court کو تسلیم کروانا ضروری ہے۔ صرف certified copy یا حوالہ انگیز خط کے ذریعے ex*****on ثابت نہیں ہوتا۔ یہاں secondary evidence کے تقاضے پوری طرح ثابت نہیں ہوئے → ناقابلِ اعتماد۔
2. Attesting witness کا عدمِ موجودگی:
اگر ایک یا دو attesting witnesses کا دستخط بقانونی پیش کیے گئے ہوں تو انہیں عدالت میں طلب کرنا لازمی ہے؛ عدمِ پیشی یا ان کے خلاف قابلِ قبول وجہ پیش کرنا پڑے گا۔ غیر موجودگی میں documentary ex*****on پر شک ہوتا ہے۔
3. Pleading کی ناکامی:
written statement میں بنیادی factual foundation کی non-disclosure عدالت کو بتاتی ہے کہ مدعا علیہان نے اپنی دفاعی بنیاد ظاہر نہیں کی — یہ fatal defect سمجھا گیا۔
4. تاریخی متضاد خطوط (1995 vs 1998):
1995 کا خط (Excise) کہتا ہے deceased نے property-tax کے خلاف لکھا، اس سے مرجع کے قبضے کی موجودگی ثابت ہوتی ہے؛ 1998 خط کا inadmissible استعمال اپیلٹ میں غلط ہوا۔ 1995 کا خط نے prosecutions کی دعوؤں کو undermine کیا۔
5. فراڈ کا ثبوت:
جب ورثاء نے fraudulent transfer کا دعویٰ کیا تو burden نقل کنندگان (donees) پر منتقل ہوتا ہے؛ documentary lacunae اور عدمِ وجود original نے donees کو اس بوجھ میں ناکام کر دیا۔
---
7۔ ہائی کورٹ کا نتیجہ (Judgment — What Court Held)
ہائی کورٹ نے نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کو کالعدم قرار دیا۔ وجہیں مختصراً:
زبانی gift کا ثبوت موجود نہ ہونا؛
memorandum/of gift کی ex*****on اور admissibility کا مناسب ثبوت نہ ہونا؛
متعلقہ دستاویزات (خصوصاً 29-08-1998 کا خط) بطور Exhibit قانون کے مطابق ثابت نہ کیے گئے؛
written statement میں لازم pleadings کی کمی؛
fraud/possession کے حقائق (1995 کا خط وغیرہ) نے donees کے مؤقف کو کمزور کیا۔
نتیجتاً: memorandum/gift کو باطل اور غیر مؤثر قرار دیا گیا، اور plaintiffs (بیوہ و بیٹا) کے حقوق بحال ہوئے — plaintiffs کی revision منظور ہوئی۔
---
8۔ قانونی اصول و precedents (Rule of law distilled)
زبانی گفٹ: اگر gift کی بنیاد زبانی لین دین ہے تو وہ خود میں separate fact ہے — اسے documented acknowledgment بعد میں بنانا underlying oral transaction کو ثابت نہیں کرتا۔
Registered document کی presumptive value مگر non-conclusive: رجسٹرڈ document پر ایک presumptive weight ہوتا ہے، مگر جب ex*****on یا attestation prove نہ ہو یا fraud کا سوال ہو تو وہ presumptive فائدہ ختم ہو سکتا ہے۔
Secondary evidence کے قواعد سخت ہیں: original کے نہ ہونے کے جواز کے بغیر secondary copy قابلِ قبول نہیں۔
Posted by Legal Luminaries
Burden on beneficiary in fraud cases: جب fraud کا allegation ہو تو beneficiary پر proof کا بھاری بوجھ آتا ہے۔
Pleadingڈسیپلن: مرکزی موضوعات کو written statement/پلاٹ میں واضح طور پر plead کرنا لازمی ہے؛ non-disclosure fatal ہو سکتی ہے۔
---
9۔ عملی رہنمائی (Practical/legal tips — وکلا کے لیے / فریقین کے لیے)
اگر آپ plaintiff (ماراتِ وراثت) ہوں:
فوراً succession certificates, death certificate اور possession کے indicators court میں جمع کروائیں۔
جب fraud کا شکوک ہو، تو original documents، tax records اور possession-related evidence (utility bills, municipal receipts) اکٹھا کریں۔
اگر opponent نے registered deed دکھایا ہے تو فوراً original مانگیں اور attesting witness کو عدالت میں لانے کا حکم دیں۔
اگر آپ donee/beneficiary ہوں (جو gift کا دعویٰ کرتے ہیں):
oral gift پر انحصار کم کریں — اگر possible ہو تو attesting witnesses، original registered deed، sub-registrar کا record اور documentary proof پیش کریں۔
اگر original دستاویز موجود نہیں تو وقتاً فوقتاً loss کا credible explanation اور attesting witness کے unavailability کی documentary proof عدالت کے سامنے رکھیں۔
written statement میں تمام relevant factual grounds پہلے سے plead کریں۔
---
10۔ خلاصہ (Brief Conclusion)
ہائی کورٹ نے عدالتی تقاضوں اور ثبوتی ضوابط کی پامالی کی بنیاد پر نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے کالعدم کیے۔
اس فیصلے سے واضح ہوتا ہے کہ: رجسٹرڈ میمورنڈم بھی جب تک ex*****on/attestation و original کے شواہد کے ساتھ پابند نہ ہو، ورثاء کے حقوق کو override نہیں کر سکتا — خصوصاً جب gift کا دعویٰ بعض ورثاء کو بقایا ورثاء سے محروم کرتا ہو۔
فیصلے نے evidence law، pleading requirements اور fraud کے حوالہ سے مضبوط واضح ہدایات جاری کیں — یہ وراثتی تنازعات میں precedent کے طور پر اہم ہے۔
Posted by Legal Luminaries
2025 YLR 841
[Lahore]
Before Asim Hafeez, J
S. AKMAL (deceased) through Legal Heirs and others---Petitioners
versus
MODEL TOWN COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY
and others---Respondents
Civil Revision No. 224476 of 2018, decided on 6th May, 2022.
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
Posted by Legal Luminaries
2025 YLR 841
----Ss. 42, 39 & 54---Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of deed/memorandum of gift---Gift in favour of a few legal heirs to the exclusion of other heirs---Proof adduced by the beneficiaries deficient---Effect---Plaintiffs (one being the wife of the deceased while other being one of the two sons) claimed their share in inheritance qua suit-property owned by deceased who passed away in the year 2005---Defendants, being (second) son and daughter of the deceased, claimed exclusive rights in the property on the basis of alleged transaction of gift, orally made in the year 1962 and acknowledgment thereof allegedly made in February, 1974---Claim of the plaintiffs was concurrently declined— Validity---Memorandum of gift referred to the factum of oral gift in the year 1962, which constituted an underlying transaction alleged to have been acknowledged by way of memorandum of gift under reference---However, no evidence was led to prove the oral gift---An employee of the deceased while appearing as one of the witnesses of defendants/respondents, stated that he was with the deceased since 1964 - when the gift was allegedly made in the year 1962---No evidence was available on record to prove factum of oral gift, let alone convincing evidence---Irrespective of subsequent registration of acknowledgment of previous gift, made orally, the transaction of oral gift had to be proved/established independently and through convincing evidence---Transaction of oral gift had to be proved independently and mere reliance on the memorandum of gift, claimed to be a registered document, was not enough---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, declaring the transaction of oral gift/memorandum of gift and actions taken on the basis thereof, were as void and of no effect qua the rights of the petitioners/plaintiff (wife and son of the deceased) with respect to the property-in-question---Revision, filed by plaintiffs, was allowed accordingly. Lahore 841
2025 YLR 841
----Ss. 42, 39 & 54---Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of deed/memorandum of gift---Document not properly/legally exhibited---Effect---Plaintiffs (one being the wife of the deceased while other being one of the two sons) claimed their share in inheritance qua suit-property owned by deceased (having been incorporated at a Housing Society)---Defendants, being (second) son and daughter of the deceased, claimed exclusive rights in the property on the basis of alleged transaction of gift, orally made in the year 1962 and acknowledgment thereof allegedly made in February, 1974---Claim of the plaintiffs was concurrently declined---A letter dated 29.08.1998, allegedly addressed by the deceased to Respondent/ Housing Society, was referred to by both the parties (letter-in-question)---Validity---Record revealed that letter-in-question was not formally produced on record nor exhibited, but was placed on record during the statement of one of the witnesses of defendants employee of Respondent (Housing Society)---Though the first Appellate Court acknowledged that the letter-in-question was not exhibited but proceeded to appreciate the contents thereof and interpreted it, on the premise of its availability on the record---Appellate court recorded its findings qua the letter-in-question and finally decided the appeal against the petitioners, upon treating letter-in-question as sufficient evidence for declaring the transaction of gift valid and legitimate---Appellate Court erred in law while basing its finding on the letter-in-question, having been merely placed on record without satisfying itself regarding the question of admissibility of the letter and proof of its authorship---Indubitably, contents of documents are not proved upon mere placing of a document on record, unless statutory requirements are fulfilled---Letter/ document-in-question, without determining its admissibility, and in the absence of proof, could not be treated as valid proof of alleged transaction of gift, when fraud was alleged---No attesting witness was produced to affirm the ex*****on of alleged memorandum---No deed-writer was produced---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, declaring the transaction of oral gift/memorandum of gift, and actions taken on the basis thereof as void and of no effect qua the rights of the petitioners/plaintiff (wife and son of the deceased) with respect to the property-in-question---Revision, filed by plaintiffs, was allowed accordingly. [Lahore] (a) 841
2025 YLR 841
Ss. 42, 39 & 54---Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of deed/memorandum of gift on basis of oral gift---Gift in favour of a few legal heirs to the exclusion of other heirs---Oral gift not asserted in written-statement---Effect---Plaintiffs (one being the wife of the deceased while other being one of the two sons) claimed their share in inheritance qua suit-property owned by deceased who died in the year 2005---Defendants, being (second) son and daughter of the deceased, claimed exclusive rights in the property on the basis of alleged transaction of gift, orally made in the year 1962 and acknowledgment thereof allegedly made in 1974---Claim of the plaintiffs was concurrently declined---Validity— Defendants/respondents, while filing written statement, had not alleged factum of oral gift allegedly made in the year 1962 which perhaps would be the foundation of their (defendants') case, claiming beneficial ownership based on alleged transaction---Thus, submission of the defendants/ respondents that non-disclosure of said fact was immaterial when memorandum of gift was executed through a written registered deed, must fail---Unless the underlying transaction oral gift was proved, the factum of alleged acknowledgement of gift, simply, would be of no tenable assistance---Failure to plead factum of oral gift in the written statement was a fatal defect, which was incurable as proof of mutation/ memorandum of gift itself did not prove earlier oral gift, when the respondents/defendants had failed to claim entitlement to oral gift in their written statement---Even otherwise, transaction of oral gift as well as memorandum of gift remained unproved in accordance with the requirements under the statute of evidence---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, declaring the transaction of oral gift/memorandum of gift, and actions taken on the basis thereof as void and of no effect qua the rights of the petitioners/plaintiff (wife and son of the deceased) with respect to the property-in-question---Revision, filed by plaintiffs, was allowed accordingly. Lahore 841
2025 YLR 841
----Ss. 42, 39 & 54---Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of deed/memorandum of gift---Gift in favour of a few legal heirs to the exclusion of other heirs---Execution of deed---Proof deficient---Plaintiffs (one being the wife of the deceased while other being one of the two sons) claimed their share in inheritance qua suit-property owned by deceased who died in the year 2005---Defendants, being (second) son and daughter of the deceased, claimed exclusive rights in the property on the basis of alleged transaction of gift, orally made in the year 1962 and acknowledgment thereof allegedly made in February, 1974---Claim of the plaintiffs was concurrently declined---Validity---Record revealed that even the ex*****on of the memorandum of gift, divorced from the transaction of oral gift, was not proved accordingly---Defendants/ respondents had not appeared as witnesses---Acknowledgment/ memorandum of gift in original was not produced---Though certified copy of acknowledgment/ memorandum of gift was produced but without fulfilling requirements of producing secondary evidence, and without providing satisfactory reasoning for non-production of the original or proof of loss of the original---Secondary evidence is merely a proof of existence, condition, or contents of the document, which per se does not prove the ex*****on of alleged document---In the present case, proof of ex*****on of memorandum remained wanting as the same was allegedly signed by deceased and witnessed by one person; however, neither any witness was produced to prove signatures of deceased nor the attesting witness was produced, nor any evidence was led that the witness was dead or inaccessible---No witness was produced to prove that whether deceased had personally appeared before the sub-Registrar at the time of recording of factum of alleged gift and who had identified the deceased---All these lapses denuded the transaction of gift of any credibility and genuineness, and legal heirs could not be deprived of their share based on inadmissible, deficient and unpersuasive, evidence---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, declaring the transaction of oral gift/memorandum of gift and actions taken on the basis thereof as void and of no effect qua the rights of the petitioners/plaintiff (wife and son of the deceased) with respect to the property-in-question---Revision, filed by plaintiffs, was allowed accordingly. Lahore841
Posted by Legal Luminaries
2025 YLR 841
---Ss. 42, 39 & 54---Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of deed/memorandum of gift---Gift in favour of a few legal heirs to the exclusion of other heirs---Fraud asserted by excluded legal heirs---Proof adduced by the beneficiaries deficient---Effect— Plaintiffs (one being the wife of the deceased while other being one of the two sons) claimed their share in inheritance qua suit-property owned by deceased who died in the year 2005---Defendants, being (second) son and daughter of the deceased, claimed exclusive rights in the property on the basis of alleged transaction of gift,, orally made in the year 1962 and acknowledgment thereof allegedly made in February, 1974---Claim of the plaintiffs was concurrently declined---A letter dated 29.08.1998, allegedly addressed by the deceased to respondent/Housing- Society was referred to by both the parties (letter-in-question)--- Validity---Record revealed that the Court(s) below while treating letter-in-question as sufficient evidence, declared the transaction of gift as valid and legitimate, whereas the Courts had overlooked the significance of another (exhibited) letter dated 16/17 September, 1995 addressed by the deceased to the Excise and Taxation Department, objecting to the quantum of property tax imposed, wherein no reference was made to the alleged gift or transfer of ownership of the property---Said document (exhibited letter of year 1995) established that deceased having retained possession of the property, despite donees having attained majority, and property was being used for the benefit of deceased - which fact rendered the claim of conveyance of corpus of the property asfalse---Both the courts had failed to appreciate that plaintiffs/petitioners alleged fraud, and denial of right of inheritance in the estate of the deceased, and their entitlement as legal heirs was not disputed especially when the courts gave declaration that plaintiff/lady was the widow of deceased---Defendants (Respondents) being the beneficiaries of the gift were required to prove the transaction of gift, factum of oral gift and ex*****on of alleged memorandum of gift---On the contrary, the plaintiffs/petitioners alleged fraud in plaint and their witness appeared as attorney and alleged fraud and denied the existence and ex*****on of gift---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, declaring the transaction of oral gift/ memorandum of gift and actions taken on the basis thereof as void and of no effect qua the rights of the petitioners/plaintiff (wife and son of the deceased) with respect to the property-in-question---Revision, filed by plaintiffs, was allowed accordingly. Lahore 841
2025 YLR 841
Ss. 42, 39 & 54---Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of deed/memorandum of gift---Gift in favour of a few legal heirs to the exclusion of other heirs---Locus standi to challenge the alleged gift---Proof adduced by the beneficiaries deficient---Plaintiffs (one being the wife of the deceased while other being one of the two sons) claimed their share in inheritance qua suit-property owned by deceased (having been incorporated at a Housing Society)---Defendants, being (second) son and daughter of the deceased, claimed exclusive rights in the property on the basis of alleged transaction of gift,, orally made in the year 1962 and acknowledgment thereof allegedly made in February, 1974---Claim of the plaintiffs was concurrently declined---Plea of the defendants was that the donor (deceased) had not questioned factum of gift in his lifetime, hence, plaintiffs lacked locus standi to challenge it after donor's death---Validity---In the present case, the legal heirs had challenged the factum of gift on plea of fraud and denial of inheritance share in the estate of the deceased, in which case heavy burden was laid upon the beneficiary of the transaction, which they failed to discharge---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, declaring the transaction of oral gift/memorandum of gift and actions taken on the basis thereof as void and of no effect qua the rights of the petitioners/plaintiff (wife and son of the deceased) with respect to the property-in-question---Revision, filed by plaintiffs, was allowed accordingly.Lahore 841
2025 YLR 841
----Ss. 42, 39 & 54---Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of deed/memorandum of gift---Gift---Proof---Plaintiffs (one being the wife of the deceased while other being one of the two sons) claimed their share in inheritance qua suit-property owned by deceased (having been incorporated at a Housing Society)---Defendants, being (second) son and daughter of the deceased, claimed exclusive rights in the property based on alleged transaction of gift,, orally made in the year 1962 and acknowledgment thereof allegedly made in 1974---Claim of the plaintiffs was concurrently declined---Validity---Exclusion of the wife and son, being the potential successors, from claiming assets of the deceased, was contrary to ordinary human conduct/behaviour and it was for the defendants/ respondents to substantiate special reasons to prove exclusion of other legal heirs - when their legal and social status was determined and declared---Defendants/respondents failed to establish that transfer of property-in-question was otherwise part of some family arrangement, whereunder distribution was made as part of some settlement, establishing entitlement of the respondents---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, declaring the transaction of oral gift/memorandum of gift and actions taken on the basis thereof as void and of no effect qua the rights of the petitioners/plaintiff (wife and son of the deceased) with respect to the property-in-question---Revision, filed by plaintiffs, was allowed accordingly.
Lahore 841
2025 YLR 841
----Ss. 42, 39 & 54---Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of deed/memorandum of gift---Gift in favour a few legal heirs to sion of their heirs---Gift challenged by excluded legal-heirs---Limitation---Plaintiffs (one being the wife of the deceased while other being one of the two sons) claimed their share in inheritance qua suit-property owned by deceased who passed away in the year 2005---Defendants, being (second) son and daughter of the deceased, claimed exclusive rights in the property based on alleged transaction of gift, orally made in the year 1962 and acknowledgment thereof allegedly made in February, 1974---Claim of the plaintiffs was concurrently declined---Validity---Record revealed that the plaintiffs/petitioners upon death of the deceased had sought succession of movable assets and thereafter filed suit for partition, wherein factum of transaction of gift, was disclosed and thereafter they filed suit seeking declaration of invalidity against alleged gift---There was no direct evidence to establish that plaintiffs/ petitioners had prior knowledge of the gift or factum thereof was ever disclosed by the deceased to them (petitioners)---In such circumstances, no question of time-barred claim arose---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, declaring the transaction of oral gift/memorandum of gift, and actions taken on the basis thereof as void and of no effect qua the rights of the petitioners/plaintiff (wife and son of the deceased) with respect to the property-in-question---Revision, filed by plaintiffs, was allowed accordingly. Lahore841
