Citation Name : 2003 MLD 384 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUF

Side Opponent : SHABBIR HUSSAIN

Specific Relief Act 1877 ----S.42---Suit for declaration ---Benami transaction---

Doctrine of advancement, applicability of---Plaintiff had claimed that he
purchased suit shop for a consideration and paid the amount thereof, but got sale
deed executed in the name of defendant who was his minor son as Benami---
Defendant having denied title of plaintiff, need to file suit arose---Defendant had
pleaded that consideration was paid by him without disclosing any source of
income as at the time of sale transaction, defendant was minor ---Trial Court
decreed the suit, but Appellate Court dismissed the suit, assuming that plaintiff
had purchased the suit shop in the name of his son with the intention that shop
would be owned by his son by way of gift by his father in his favour ---Validity--
Approach of Appellate Court was hot in consonance with law---Appellate Court
proceeded to apply doctrine of advancement provided for in English Law which
presumed that if a purchase was made by a person in the name of a child or wife
then child or wife would be considered as purchasers for valuable
consideration---Said doctrine was not applicable in Pakistan and there was no
such presumption in law of Pakistan---Decision as to whether transaction was a
Benami or whether same amounted to a gift , was one of intention---Presumption
was that where it was proved that property was purchased in the name of son by
the father, son was a Benami and father was a real owner---Appellate Court had
acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction while passing
judgment and decree whereby suit of plaintiff was dismissed

Citation Name : 2002 MLD 651 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Side Appellant : TAUS KHAN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD SHUAIB
Islamic Law ---gift of undivided property in favour of minor ---Delivery of
possession---Donee being minor at the-time of making of gift of property in his
favour, delivery of possession of gift ed property to him by the donor was not
sine qua non for the validity of the gift ---Delivery of possession of gift ed
property to other donee who was major at the time of making of gift , was also
not necessary because said property at relevant time had not been partitioned---
Possession of such donee could be regulated and validated by subsequent
delivery of possession after partition of, said property---gift of specified Khasra
numbers out of the joint poperty on which donor had possession, would be
justified subject to adjustment at the time of partition of property.

Citation Name : 2001 CLC 1007 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Side Appellant : SHAMSHER
Side Opponent : YAR MUHAMMAD KHAN
Islamic Law gift ---gift to minors---Islam had though prescribed that for validity
of gift delivery of possession was necessary, but where property was gifted,
away to the minor s, delivery of possession to the minor s was not necessary.

Citation Name : 2001 CLC 807 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : SHEEDAN
Side Opponent : ABDUL GHAFOOR
Islamic Law gift ---Validity---gift in favour of wife and minor children by donor
was found to be invalid by Appellate Court simply on ground that possession of
land was not delivered to the donees---Donees as per entries in Register
Haqdaran-e-Zamin were recorded to be the owners and in possession thereof
through a tenant---Effect---Where gift was made by donee to wife or minor
children, physical departure of donor from gift ed land and delivery of actual
possession to donees was not necessary---Appellate Court having acted with
material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction and its findings being based on
misreading of evidence, judgment and decree passed were set aside by High
Court.

Citation Name : 2000 PTD 2034 GAUHATI-HIGH-COURT-INDIA

Side Appellant : ROOPCHAND MANOJ KUMAR
Side Opponent : COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Income Tax ----Cash credits---Genuineness of cash credits---Income-tax Officer
adding credit in names of two minor girls to income of assessee-firm---Creditors
genuine persons and identity of creditors -proved---Creditworthiness of creditors
proved as amount of loan was accumulation of income on account of customary
gifts in Hindu society received by minor girls ---Assessee-firm belonged to
maternal uncle of creditors---Cash credits genuine and amount cannot be added
to income of assessee---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.68.

Citation Name : 1999 SCMR 1328 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : RIAZ AHMAD
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Specific Relief Act 1877 S. 42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Suit
for declaration due to denial of rights by co-sharer---Plaintiff's suit was dismissed
by Trial Court on ground of limitation---Appellate Court and High Court
decreed plaintiff's suit---Validity---Defendant's plea that suit was barred by time
was repelled by Appellate Court and High Court---Mutation in question was
attested on basis of gift , validity of which was challenged on ground that gift
obtained from minor (plaintiff) was unlawful in the eye of law and no rights
came to vest in defendants on basis of alleged gift or mutation got attested on
basis of said transaction---Such transaction made by minor could not be ratified
after attaining majority---Held: Plaintiff being in possession of other property in
Khata as co-sharer, no limitation would run against her, specially when case of
plaintiff was that cause of action accrued to her at the time of denial of title
which occurred one week before filing of suit; wrong mutation would confer no
right in property, for, Revenue Record was maintained only for purpose of
ensuring realization of land revenue; co-sharer could file suit for declaration due
to denial of rights by other co-sharers and limitation would start in such case on
denial of title---No justification was pointed out to interfere with well-reasoned
judgment of High Court---Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.

Citation Name : 1998 CLC 935 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : IMDAD ALI KHAN
Side Opponent : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD
Sindh Encumbered Estates Act 1896 Ss. 3 & 7---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
0.1, R.9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---
Alternate remedy--Availing of---Maintainability---Government functionary
appointed as Manager of estate of minor to save the same from going waste at
the hands of minor 's father who was also appointed guardian of minor
---Validity---Petitioner (father) having challenged appointment of Manager,
neither minor , nor his mother (on whose application Manager had been
appointed) were impleaded as respondents in Constitutional petition---Petitioner
was although natural guardian of his minor son yet his interests being in conflict
with those of minor , it was necessary to implead minor either through his
mother or to seek appointment of guardian ad litem to protect minor 's interest---
Constitutional petition was, thus, barred on such ground alone---Petitioner,
however, having questioned appointment of Manager by way of civil suit, and
thus, alternate remedy being available and, in fact having been availed of by
petitioner, basic precondition for exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the
Constitution had not been satisfied---Besides, discretionary relief under Art. 199
of the Constitution could only be granted to person who had approached Court
with clean hands---Petitioner himself had stated that he executed gift s in favour
of his minor son to avoid surrender of land under Martial Law Regulation
No.115---Such intention of petitioner would manifest intended fraud on law,
therefore, he could not be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in exercise
of equitable jurisdiction of High Court--Petitioner being trustee of minor 's
property could not be allowed to misappropriate minor 's property or to convert
the same to his own use--Appointment of Manager of minor 's property even if
was without jurisdiction same need not be set aside if no injustice was caused---
Petitioner admittedly was not interested in protecting interest of minor, i.e.,
owner of property but was attempting to misappropriate the same---Petitioner,
therefore, had no locus standi to institute Constitutional petition which was not
maintainable in

Citation Name : 1998 PTD 2309 ALLAHABAD-HIGH-COURT-INDIA

Side Appellant : COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
Side Opponent : SUNEHARI LAL GARG
Wealth Tax ---- Net wealth---Exemption---gift s made by assessee to his minor
children between 31-3-1964 and 1-4-1972---Amounts chargeable to gift tax or
exempted under S.5 of gift Tax Act during period 31-3-1964 to 1-4-1972---Scope
of proviso to SA(1)(a) of Wealth Tax Act---Value of such gift s not includable in
net wealth of assessee even for assessment years 1972-73 and subsequent years---
Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, S 4(1)(a).

Citation Name : 1997 CLC 1800 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SARWAR
Side Opponent : GHULAM BI
Muhammadan Law ----gift ---gift deed not coupled with the delivery of
possession of corpus to the donee --Validity---Essentials---gift out of a joint
property is valid without formally delivering the possession to donee---Locus
standi to challenge such gift . If a donor is himself in actual physical possession
of the corpus the delivery of possession would normally require actually putting
up the donee in physical possession of the same but there may well be cases
where the possession is not with the donor himself or where the donee is already
in possession jointly or severally with the donor or where the donee is a minor
and the donor is a minor 's guardian it would not be a condition precedent for
completion of a possession in exercise of his individual right has no locus standi
to challenge the gift as he challenges the same not through the donor but in spite
of and against him.

Citation Name : 1996 MLD 1146 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD HANEEF
Side Opponent : UMER DARAZ KHAN
Muhammadan Law ----gift ---Validity---gift deed indicated that there was offer
by donor in favour of donee regarding giving house in question, in gift ; there
was acceptance of said gift by the father of donee on his behalf for donee was
minor at that time, but the third ingredient which was most important to
constitute valid gift i.e., delivery of possession of gifted property by donor to
donee was however, missing---gift deed nowhere contained that possession of
house in question, was ever delivered to donee, nor there was any endorsement
to the effect that possession of same was received on behalf of donee by his
father---Claim of donee about delivery of possession of house in question, was
not supported by his witness---Other two attesting witnesses had not been
examined by donee-gift in question, was thus, not a valid gift and did not create
any right or title in favour of alleged donee in circumstances.

Citation Name : 1995 PTD 1274 RAJASTHAN-HIGH-COURT-INDIA

Side Appellant : COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
Side Opponent : A.S. RATHORE
Wealth Tax ---- Transfer of assets ---Assessee having bank account in name of
minor son---Assessee gifting that amount to minor son---Interest accruing on
amount gift ed not includible in wealth of assessee--Indian Wealth-tax Act, 1957,
S.4(1)(a)(ii).
Citation Name : 2007 MLD 50 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
Side Opponent : IMAM BAKHSH
---gift ---Validity---gift of entire property in favour of plaintiff by his deceased
brother--gift was challenged by three minor sons left behind by the deceased---
Neither one of the marginal witnesses nor scribe of the gift deed was examined
by plaintiff---Later on plaintiff produced his brother but his name as a witness
appeared to have been interpolated subsequently---Courts below had, for good
reason, disbelieved the factum of gift ---None of grounds mentioned in S.100,
C.P.C. which could have justified interference in impugned decree in second
appeal, was pointed out.

Citation Name : 1995 MLD 1593 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Side Appellant : FATIMA
Side Opponent : NOORUL HUDA
Civil Procedure Code --Order XLI of C.P.C. Appeals from Original Decrees
----OXLI, R.25 & S.115---Revision against remand of case---Case was remanded
on the ground that Trial Court should have determined whether house in
question, was situate in specific Khasra number in view of "Patwari Halqa's
statement that house in question was situate in said Khasra--Patwari's such
statement was not based on Revenue .Record but on his oral statement, which
was of no .legal effect---Plaintiff's statement and evidence that house in question,
was given to her mother by her father-in-law on the eve of her mother's marriage
with donor's son in lieu of dower and that after the death of her mother and
father, she was the sole owner was falsified by the statement of plaintiff's next
friend and uncle who had admitted that plaintiff's father was alive and was
residing at a specified place along-with his second wife---During the lifetime of
plaintiffs own father, her uncle could not act as a legal guardian and next friend
of plaintiff who was minor ---Alleged gift through an unregistered document
could not be considered in evidence for having been executed not by the
husband of petitioner's mother but her father-in-law--Petitioner also failed to
prove that house in question, was given to defendants on payment of
"Khakshora" or that she had received any rent---Plaintiff's suit suffering from
such defects and drawbacks, could not have been remanded merely on the basis
of Patwari's oral statement for determining as to whether house in question was
situate in specific Khasra number---Order of remand was set aside and plaintiffs
suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 1995 CLC 130 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Side Appellant : ABDUL KARIM
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD AKRAM
Limitation Act 1908 ----Art. 91---Cancellation/revocation of gift deed---
Limitation---Cause of action for cancellation/revocation of deed would start
from its registration--Once period of limitation starts running it would not sto p
running except where disability (minor ity, fraud etc.) was attached to plaintiff---
Plaintiff having attained majority long before the institution of suit and no other
disability having been pleaded, suit for cancellation of deed was time-barred,
having been filed after about 12 years of registration of deed.

Citation Name : 1994 SCMR 1333 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : NOOR NISSA
Side Opponent : NAZIR AHMAD KHAN LUGHMANI
Martial Law Regulation 1972 No. 115 ----Para. 7---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art. 185 (3)---Punjab Court of Wards Act (II of 1903), S. 16---Land under
superintendence of Court of Wards---Decrees were consent decrees and had been
passed by the Civil Court before 20-12-1971 which was the cut off date
mentioned in para. 7 of the Regulation---Such decrees had attained finality as
they were not challenged in competent forums---Disability under S. 16 of the
Punjab Court of Wards Act, 1903 could not be equated with disability wherein
transfer was void on the ground that a Muslim minor of relevant category could
not make a gift as it was not permissible under Muhammadan Law---Federal
Land Commission having no jurisdiction to set aside or ignore such decrees of
the Civil Courts which could be set aside and challenged in higher Courts, High
Court was justified in setting aside order of the Land Commission---Leave to
appeal was refused against the order of High Court in circumstances.

Citation Name : 1992 CLC 1567 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : HABIBULLAH
Side Opponent : SHAMIM AKHTAR
Muhammadan Law gift ---Proof---Conduct of donor---Father, after gifting
property in question to his minor children was managing affairs of such property
in his capacity as guardian of donees---Photo stat of various tenancy agreements
executed between donor and tenants of gift ed property during last fourteen
years showed that such agreements were executed by the donor on behalf of
donees as their guardian---Rent receipts of property in question also showed that
donor issued receipts to various tenants on behalf of donees---Donor in his
petition before High Court acted as guardian of donees in respect of gift ed
property---Such documentary evidence prima facie, supported donees'
contention that property in question, was gift ed in their favour by donor.

Citation Name : 1988 CLC 1633 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : ABDULLAH
Side Opponent : MAQBOOL AHMAD
Muhammadan Law gift --Validity of--Delivery of possession of gift ed property
by donor to donee was necessary--Where gift was made by grandfather to his
minor grandson who was under the care and custody of donor grandfather,
change of possession of gift ed property, held, was not necessary--After
declaration of gift by donor-grandfather who occupied position of de facto
guardian of donee grandson possession of donor of gift ed property would be
presumed to ' be on behalf of minor donee.

Citation Name : 1988 CLC 1007 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : SHAHZAD AHMAD
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BAHAWALPUR
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ---S.141--Objection petition--Doctrine of lis
pendens--Petitioners' father agreed :o give land in dispute to his wife in lieu of
her dower and suit filed by latter to recover dower ended in compromise--
Objection petition was filed by minor sons of petitioner in execution proceedings,
instituted by wife, on ground that said property stood gift ed to them from their
father--Again amendment in objection petition was sought to assert that gift had
been completed before entry and attestation of mutation--Petitioners father and
guardian through said amendment appearing to have invented a device to
deprive his wife of property given to her in lieu of dower--Transaction of gift ,
held, was hit by doctrine of lis pendens and in order to negate this doctrine an
amendment had been sought so as to predate transaction of gift --Amendment in
objection petition disallowed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 1988 MLD 1676 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SADIO KHAN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN
Muhammadan Law ---gift --gift from father to minor children or from husband
to wife--Formal acceptance not necessary.

Citation Name : 1988 CLC 1122 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ALTAFUR REHMAN
Side Opponent : MASOOD AHMED KHAN
Guardians and Wards Act 1890 Ss. 7, 8 & 9--Appointment of guardian of insane
minor --Application for--Jurisdiction of Court--Permanent residence of insane
minor girl was at place 'K' and father of such minor who had made gift in her
favour at place 'K' and also had died there--District Court at place 'K' and not at
place 'L', held, would have jurisdiction to entertain and decide application for
appointment of guardian of such minor , even if minor at present was residing at
place 'L'.

Citation Name : 1987 CLC 2011 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MAHTAB ELAHI
Side Opponent : GHULAM RASOOL
Muhammadan Law ---gift --Possession--gift made by father in favour of his
minor child-Delivery of physical possession to donee not necessary for
completion and validity of gift --Held, there should be a bona fide intention to
make gift and an acceptance of gift --gift by owner should show that he was
divesting himself of ownership of gift ed property and was conferring same on
donee--Mere recital of transfer of constructive possession in gift deed was
sufficient to complete and validate a gift in favour of one's minor child.

Citation Name : 1987 CLC 1765 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ABDUL HAI
Side Opponent : HASEENA KHATOON
Civil Procedure Code --Order XL of C.P.C. Appointment of Receivers O. XL, R.
1--Appointment of receiver--House in dispute falling in the share of minor
plaintiff being issue of a predeceased son of ancestor and his claim to ownership
thereof stronger than claim of defendant who was in possession and raised plea
of gift of said property in his favour--Plaintiff making serious allegations of
waste and mismanagement and misappropriation of property in hands of
defendant who was enjoying full residential facilities in house and also collecting
rent from tenants of six shops annexed to residential units--Receiver appointed
by Court in circumstances in respect of property in suit to take all past accounts.

Citation Name : 1986 MLD 801 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : KHUDA BAKHSH
Side Opponent : FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION
Provisional Constitution Order 1981 ---Paras 7 & 29--Constitution of Pakistan
(1973), Art.199--Federal Land Commission--Suo motu revisional jurisdiction--
Mutation of gift -Federal Land Commissioner finding that donor accepted gift on
behalf of minor sons invalidated gift and reviewed mutation without actually
affording donor or donees an opportunity of being heard although orders passed
on file to serve them with notice and impugned order of Federal Land
Commission showing that parties had been served--Contention that a
presumption of regularity was attached to official acts and that recital be
accepted as correct, held, was not tenable.

Citation Name : 1986 MLD 2355 FEDERAL-LAND-COMMISSION

Side Appellant : STATE
Side Opponent : DILAWAR KHAN
Martial Law Regulation 1972 No. 115 ---Paras. 7 & 29-- gift -- Genuineness and
bona fides of-Requirements--Mutation duly entered and sanctioned--Change of
ownership reflected in subsequent Jamabandi-- Khasra Girdawari showing
possession of donees subsequent to transaction of gift -- to tality of evidence and
circumstances in which gift s were made, held, would prove genuineness and
bona fides of gift --minor donees present before Revenue Officer to make
statement accepting gift would not be material-Such acceptance would be
implicit where gift s were made by father of donees when they were minor
--Transfer of possession to minor children, would not be necessary in a gift made
by father.
Citation Name : 1984 CLC 2330 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MAHMOOD QADRI
Side Opponent : O. S. D., FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION
---Para. 7 - Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-Natural justice, principles of-
Opportunity of being heard-gift made in favour of major and minor sons
declared invalid by Land Commission, same having not been made before target
date and for reason of some manipulation - Petitioners not given any notice
before passing impugned order-Decision made on merits also challenged-Case
remanded to Federal Land Commission for fresh decision after notice to
petitioners.-[Natural justice, principles of].

Citation Name : 1984 CLC 624 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ILLAHI BAKHSH
Side Opponent : BODO MAL
---S. 21-Appeal-Ejectment proceedings-Personal requirement-Fact that landlord
gift ed some properties to minor daughters or a new property was purchased in
name of his wife or he owned some other properties elsewhere, held, would not
disentitle him from claiming ejectment on ground of his personal requirement if
otherwise its bona fides proved-Landlord putting up with his family with his
son-in-law for want of any accommodation of his own-Bona fide personal
requirement, held, proved.

Citation Name : 1984 MLD 393 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD HASSAN
Side Opponent : OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY AND JOINT SECRETARY,
FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION
Constitution of Pakistan 1973 ---Art. 199--Land Reform Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R
115), paras. 7 & 29--gift -- Petitioners (minor son and daughter) specified heirs in
terms of Explanation 1 to para.7 --Bona fide of gift , held, could not be gone into
--Held further, that there was no embargo on power of mortgagor to effect gift s
as gift s would have been subject to mortgage.

Citation Name : 1984 MLD 291 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : GHULAM RASOOL
Side Opponent : FEDERAL LAND COMMISSIONER
Constitution of Pakistan 1973 ---Art .199--Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [ M . L.
R.115 ], paras 25 to 29--gift --Donee minor child of donor--In case of gift in favour
of minor delivery of possession, held, not necessary, held.--[gift ].

Citation Name : 1984 MLD 291 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : GHULAM RASOOL
Side Opponent : FEDERAL LAND COMMISSIONER
Martial Law Regulation 1972 No. 115 ---Art .199--Land Reforms Regulation, 1972
[ M . L. R.115 ], paras 25 to 29--gift --Donee minor child of donor--In case of gift
in favour of minor delivery of possession, held, not necessary, held.--[gift ].

Citation Name : 1972 PTD 581 KERALA-HIGH-COURT-INDIA

Side Appellant : L. JOSE KANNAMPILLY Side Opponent : CONTROLLER OF
ESTATE DUTY, KERALA
Estate Duty Estate duty----gift by deceased to major and minor sons Donor
receiving the income as power of attorney agent and guardian-Donor's will
providing that donees could recover the income from his estate-Whether the gift
ed items could be included in the donor's estate--Estate Duty Act, 1953, S. 10.

Citation Name : 1970 PLD 83 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Side Appellant : KHAN BAHADUR MIAN FEROZ SHAH (REPRESENTED BY
10 HEIRS)
Side Opponent : THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NORTH ZONE,
(WEST PAKISTAN), LAHORE
Income Tax Act 1922 S. 16(I)(c), proviso 3, (3)(a)(iv)Determination of to tal
income Exemptions and exclusions-Assessee transferring his house properties to
his sons including 2 minor s by means of gift -Such transfer being without
consideration, proviso third to S. 16(1)(c) not applicable to income arising from
properties in question-Provision of S. 16(1)(c) read with its third proviso, held,
cannot override express provisions of S. 16(3)(a)(iv).

Citation Name : 1966 PLD 1059 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MANSUR RAZA AND 4 OTHERS
Side Opponent : MST. SYRRIA BEGUM
Muhammadan Law gift -Guardianship-Donor mother of donee minor s-Transfer
of possession necessary-Muhammadan mother not a guardian of either person or
property of minor in lifetime of father-Entitled only to hizanat of her minor
children.

Citation Name : 1966 PLD 36 WEST-PAKISTAN-BOARD-OF-REVENUE

Side Appellant : MALIK NAZAR HAYAT KHAN
Side Opponent : THE STATE
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation 1959 West Pakistan Land Reforms
Regulation, 1959, paras. 7 & 15gift s of land -made to major sons, minor
daughter, wives, minor grand-children, mother, and daughters-in-law-
Mutations entered on 24th July 1957-Delivery of possession not established-gift s
in favour of minor daughter and wives-Delivery of possession not necessary-gift
s validated-gift s in favour of major sons, daughters-in-law, mother and minor
grand-children not validated for want of actual delivery of possession.

Citation Name : 1966 PLD 2 WEST-PAKISTAN-BOARD-OF-REVENUE

Side Appellant : MIR GHULAM ALI KHAN TALPUR
Side Opponent : THE STATE
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation 1959 West Pakistan Land Reforms
Regulation, 1959, para. 7(2) read with para. 25-gift s of land to minor daughters-
Validation-Justification sought on considerations of family custom, donor's heart
attack and saving property from death duty not established-Concurrent findings
of local officers and Land Commissioner leading to refusal of validation-Not
interfered.

Citation Name : 1965 PLD 665 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : RABIA KHATUN
Side Opponent : AZIZUDDIN BISWAS
Muhammadan Law Muhammadan Law-gift -Delivery of possession essential for
completion of gift -gift by father to his infant son-Possession to remain with
father as natural guardian-Adoptive father being in position of de facto guardian
of minor making gift of property to adoptee-Formal delivery of possession to
donee not necessary.

Citation Name : 1957 PLD 85 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Side Appellant : AURANGZEB
Side Opponent : DAUD KHAN
Muhammadan Law gift -----Transfer of possession of property gift ed---Not
always essential----gift from grandfather to minor grandsons whose father is
dead.

Citation Name : 2006 YLR 2596 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Mst. MASHAN through Legal Heirs
Side Opponent : FAKHAR IMAM through Irshad Bibi
---Ss.96, O.XXIII, R.3 & S.12(2)--- Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), Ss.9 & 42---
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.114---Islamic Law---gift ---Proof---gift by an
unmarried old pardanashin lady in favor of her nephew, son of her deceased
brother, was subsequently challenged by lady under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Contention
of nephew was that gift in question confirmed by virtue of consent decree could
not be assailed by the lady as consent decree operates as an estoppels---
Validity---Courts below had properly analyzed the evidence on record produced
by the both parties and given cogent reasons concurrently and correctly
concluded that it was the lady who had appeared before the Court and had
conceded the suit of the defendant nephew through which she admitted the
making of the valid gift in his favor and there was no ambiguity or doubt about
her identification or presence before the Court---Such findings, being concurrent
were not shown to be the result of any misreading or non-reading of evidence
and therefore, could not be set aside---Certain discrepancies in sanctioning the
mutation had occurred as lady was an old illiterate woman and that nephew had
never applied for comparison of thumb-impression of lady through Finger Print
Expert but those had lost their significance and could not be made basis of
upsetting the concurrent finding of fact recorded by Courts below specially
because of lady's acknowledgment of the gift vide consent decree which had
rightly not been upset by Courts below in proceedings under S.12(2), C.P. C.-Plea
about lack of advice to lady by a male member of her family was irrelevant
because lady was not married and both of her brothers were dead by the time,
moreover, it was proved on record that admittedly throughout her life she had
been living with her brother, father of defendant nephew, and even after demise
of brother she was being looked after by the defendant's family, hence if she had
made the gift in favor of her minor orphan nephews, it appeared to be very
natural and for valid consideration---Held, it was the lady who executed the
compromise deed, appeared before the Court, made the statement and was duly
identified through her photo graph and photo copy of the identity card and that
was sufficient proof of her appearing before the Court and admitting about the
gift ---No misreading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out for
interference in the concurrent finding of Courts below.

Citation Name : 2006 YLR 1577 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Raja SHAUKAT ALI
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD AKRAM through Legal Heirs
---S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXII, R.7---Suit for declaration---
Agreement of compromise on behalf of minor by a next friend or guardian---
Binding effect on minor ---Father of petitioner gift ed away 1/3rd of his land
jointly in favour of his brother and sister at a time when petitioner was not even
born---Based on said Will; gift ed land was mutated in favour of said two
legatees--Subsequently, petitioner was born and mother of petitioner and
petitioner who was minor , through his grandfather as next friend filed a suit to
challenge said Will and respective mutations made in favour of brother and
sister by way of gift ---Said suit was compromised when due permission under
O. XXXJI, R.7, C.P.C. was granted to petitioner's grandfather in respect of
compromise---Certain lands were given to petitioner according to terms of
compromise and said suit was decreed in terms of compromise---One of the
legatees/brother of deceased sold certain land from his share to predecessor-in-
interest of respondents---Petitioner disputed said transaction, through
declaratory suit; whereas respondents claimed as successors of their respective
fathers who were bona fide purchasers thereof---Both Courts below, had
concurrently found that vendees/respondents were bona fide purchasers of land
for valuable consideration---Contention of petitioner was that as at relevant time
he was minor , the compromise recorded in earlier litigation, during his minor
ity was not binding on him---Validity---Submission of petitioner was not entirely
correct as O.XXXII, R.7, C. P. C., specifically permitted a compromise to be made
on behalf of a minor by a next friend or guardian, if the Court so permitted---Suit
of petitioner against respondents other than respondents/bona fide purchasers,
was decreed--Said decree, however, would not affect any rights acquired bona
fide, by parties, prior to said date.
Citation Name : 2006 YLR 1277 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : RESHAM BIBI
Side Opponent : RIAZ BIBI
--gift ---Validity---Plaintiff, just twenty days after the gift mutation, challenging
gift in suit for declaration asserted that he had not made any gift in favour of his
one daughter/defendant excluding the two others---Suit was decreed but decree
was set aside in appeal---Validity---Being beneficiary of gift and mutation
defendant/donee was to prove that gift had been validly made in her favour but
she failed to prove so and her absence from witness box produced an adverse
inference upon her case---Reasoning regarding non-delivery of possession of gift
property would have been sustained only if donee had been a minor or
unmarried but neither she was minor nor unmarried daughter under the care of
her father who was in continuous possession of suit property---Identifying
witness of mutation in question was, without any reason, not produced---No
justification was found on record as to why plaintiff selected defendant for gift
while excluding his two other daughter and wife---Appellate Court accepted that
there was no direct evidence of offer and acceptance of gift and delivery of
possession but it proceeded on wrong premise by holding that plaintiff had not
refuted the offer or acceptance---Appellate decree was, therefore, not legally
sustainable.

Citation Name : 2006 CLC 1009 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : TAFHEEM-UL-HUDA
--gift ---Proof---Grandfather making gift in favour of minor granddaughter who
was residing in the house of grandfather---Burden of proof, was not on the
beneficiary but upon the donor to prove the alleged fictitious and forged nature
of transaction---In case of father and minor daughter, grandfather qua the minor
granddaughter, the intention to make the gift had to play the pivotal role---
Delivery of possession had been proved by copy of record of rights---Alienation
from donor in favour of his another son of the remaining lands without any
objection repelled the contention that ability and capacity of donor was affected
by any infirmity of illiteracy and deafness preventive in matter of alienation---
Non-production of the Revenue Officer, recorder of impugned gift statement,
relevant Patwari and two alleged identifiers of the concerned village had clearly
showed that petitioner had failed to disprove the factum of gift ---Non-filing of
appeal and revision against mutation in revenue hierarchy and against decree
passed in favour of vendee/granddaughter, with regard to gift mutation before
District Court and in the High Court was also fatal for acceptance of case of
donor---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.117 & 118.

Citation Name : 2006 MLD 813 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : ABDUL AZIZ through Legal Heirs
Side Opponent : FATIMA BIBI
----S.42---gift ---Oral gift ---Poof---Suit for declaration based on oral gift ---Suit
was decreed but decree was reversed in appeal on ground that mutation had not
been sanctioned therefore gift could not be proved---Validity---Oral gift takes
effect when made regardless of the date on which a mutation may subsequently
be sanctioned---Validity of an oral gift is not effected even where a mutations is
not sanctioned at all---Very fact that gift was recorded coupled with material fact
that donees to ok possession of their separate portions as reflected in
jumabandies and the fact that they were still in cultivating possession of their
respective shares was sufficient to demonstrate that three essential ingredients of
a valid gift sto od proved---No evidence was available on record that doner
renounced the gift made by him or had sought to repossess the land delivered to
donees under his gift ---Even if there had been a subsequent change of mind by
donor, the same could not have resulted in withdrawal of gift because title
irrevocably stood vested in donees---Not necessary for a donee to be minor and
oral gift could also have been proved through testimony of witnesses alone---
Recording of mutation even though unsanctioned very strongly had
corroborated the case set up by plaintiff---Appellate Court wrongly observed
that want of sanction rendered the mutation useless and gift could only have
been proved if mutation had been sanctioned.

Citation Name : 2006 MLD 659 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : SULTAN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
---S. 42---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss.122 & 123---Suit for
declaration---Execution of gift ---Plaintiffs who were father, son and daughter in
their suit for declaration had challenged gift mutation allegedly got executed by
them in favour of defendants/donee---Plaintiffs had claimed that gift in question
was the result of fraud and misrepresentation, besides that son and daughter of
donor at relevant time were minor s and that donor (father) had no lawful
authority on their behalf to make the gift and that gift to their extent was void---
Suit was dismissed by Trial Court on ground of delay as mutation of gift in
dispute was challenged after about 26 years of its execution---Son and daughter
of plaintiff/donor by producing identity cards and other documentary and oral
evidence, had fully proved that at relevant time when alleged gift mutation was
executed and attested they both were minor s---Validity---Transaction/alienation
of an immovable property on behalf of minor s, was void, even if it was made by
their legal and natural guardian, except where disposition of such property was
for the need of minor s---Such was not the position in the present case, rather
property of minor s which they had inherited from their mother and was duly
mutated in their favour, was gift ed by their father---Mutation of gift in question,
in circumstances was absolutely void and ineffective against the rights of minor
s/plaintiffs---Mutation of gift in dispute though had not been challenged by
minor s within three years on attaining age of majority, but suit to their extent
could not be dismissed, because defendants had been paying plaintiffs/minor s
share of produce of suit-land and cause of action had accrued a week before the
institution of the suit when defendants had denied the title of plaintiffs to suit
property---Even otherwise, on account of declaration that gift mutation was void,
plaintiffs would become sharers along with defendants in same Khata---Remedy
of minor s to seek declaration was not hit by any provisions of Limitation Act,
1908---Fraud in respect of mutation as alleged by father of minor s, had not been
established against him and such mutation having been effected about 26 years
ago, could not be declared to be voidable and case of father (plaintiff) would be
hit by Limitation Act, 1908---Judgment and decrees of two Courts below were set
aside, suit of minor s to the extent of their shares in the gift ed land was decreed,
whereas to the extent of share of father was dismissed and impugned mutation
was maintained.

Citation Name : 2004 YLR 130 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Side Appellant : MUSHTAQ AHMAD
Side Opponent : Mst. NEELAM
----S. 5---Constitution of Pakistan. (1973), Art. 199--- Constitutional petition--
Maintenance allowance, recovery of---Such allowance was claimed by wife and
minor children---Family Court decreed the suit against the husband---Validity---
Wife is entitled to claim maintenance if she is forced to live apart from the
husband on account of the acts of cruelty by the husband---Maintenance is
neither a nature of gift nor a benefit but is an undeniable legal obligation of-the
husband to maintain his wife when she is not staying away without any
justifiable reason---Judgment and decree passed by the Family Court was
recorded in the light of material on record and no case 'of misreading or non-
reading of .evidence had been made out---Mere fact that no finding had been
returned on issue pertaining to payment or otherwise of dower amount by itself
was not sufficient to annul the judgment and decree in exercise of Constitutional
jurisdiction--Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.
Citation Name : 2004 PLD 255 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ZOFIGAN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD KHAN
----Suit by minor challenging sale of his land by father---Plaintiff's plea was that
suit-land was gift ed to him by his mother having inherited same from her father;
that he was minor at the time of sale, which was not contracted by him nor did
he receive sale price thereof nor did he mutate land to the defendants---
Defendants plea was that such sale was made in their favour by minor 's father
as real owner, while minor was its ostensible owner---Onus of issue relating to
status of plaintiff's father as real owner was on the defendants---Plaintiff's
witnesses including plaintiff supported his claim, but not a single question was
asked from them by defendants during cross-examination regarding actual
purchase/ownership or ostensible ownership of suit-land---Plaintiff produced in
evidence mutation of gift in his favour by his mother, Jamabandi and Khasra
Girdawari reflecting his name therein--Defendants failed to prove that suit-land
was in fact purchased by plaintiff's father, who actually paid its sale price and
got same transferred in his wife's name as Benami owner, which she
subsequently gift ed to plaintiff upon instructions and desire of her husband---
Defendants did not summon plaintiff's father or mother as witnesses to prove
their plea of Benami---Plaintiff's father and mother had never claimed to be real
owners of suit-land---Held, plaintiff was not ostensible owner of suit-land, but
was its real owner.

Citation Name : 2003 PTD 647 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : JALIL CENTRE, ABDALI ROAD, MULTAN
Side Opponent : COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/WEALTH TAX
(APPEALS) ZONE, MULTAN
Wealth-Tax Act 1963 ---Ss.16(3), 17, 27 & 29---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.
185(3)---Wealth escaping assessment in respect of property treating same to be
assessed as Association of Persons and not as an individual---Appeal against
such determination filed by assessee was accepted, but Tribunal resto red the
status of assessee as that of an Association of Persons---High Court dismissed
appeals filed by assessee---Validity---Dispute in the present case pertained qua
determination of status of property as assessee claimed itself to be an individual,
while Department treated same to be Association of Persons---Property in
question was indivisible having only one staircase---Site plan of property, had
been got approved by assessee in his own name from Municipal Corporation
---Assessee after raising construction over property made gift to his wife, minor
daughter and three sons, whereas land underneath the Plaza remained still in the
name of assessee---Factual controversy, whether property could be treated in
individual capacity or same had got the status of Association of Persons, had
been determined by Tribunal after considering factual aspects of the case---
Questions formulated by assessee in its memo of appeal before High Court had
no legal value as the matter was to tally a factual controversy---Judgment of
High Court was unexceptionable as interference under S. 27 of the Act could be
made only on a question of law---Supreme Court dismissed petitions for leave to
appeal in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2007 CLD 277 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-

COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN
Side Appellant : In the matter of: ACQUISITIONS OF SHARES OF UNITED
SUGAR MILLS LIMITED and 12 others
Side Opponent : In the matter of: ACQUISITIONS OF SHARES OF UNITED
SUGAR MILLS LIMITED and 12 others
---S. 3---Islamic Law ---Concept of 'Constructive' delivery---Hiba---Essentials of
Hiba--Under Islamic Law , three essentials of Hiba were of fer, acceptance and
actual physical delivery---Concept. of 'Constructive' delivery was a concept not
compatible with Islamic Jurisprudence on the point---Under Islamic Law , actual
delivery had to be made in cases where the Gift ed property was a movable
asset---Since possession of pledged shares was with Financial Institutions, their
delivery could not have been possible---Even otherwise, Listed Companies
(Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares and Takeovers) Ordinance, 2002, did
not exempt acquisition of beneficial shares---No exemption was available to such
acquisition under S.3 of Listed Companies (Substantial Acquisition, of Voting
Shares and Takeovers) Ordinance, 2002 as those shares were neither held by
them in their name prior to coming in force of said Ordinance, nor did they
devolve in inheritance or succession or were transferred by a Financial
Institution within the meaning and scope of cl. (6), S.3 of the Ordinance

Citation Name : 2007 SCMR 236 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : AURANGZEB through L.Rs.
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD JAFFAR
---S. 115---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Gift ---Validity---
Revision---Scope---Concurrent findings of facts by Courts below---High. Court in
revision set aside such findings---Petitioner's contentions were that High Court
was not competent to set aside concurrent findings of fact in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction; that power of High Court to interfere under 5.115, C.P.C.,
was limited to correct some legal errors and not to substitute its own findings,
even if finding of Courts below were erroneous or a different view was possible;
that Courts below were right in holding that ingredients of Gift were not fulfilled
as delivery of possession was never made, to donee, thus, Gift was void under
Islamic Law and that impugned judgment was result of misreading and non-
reading of material evidence---Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to
consider such contentions of petitioner.

Citation Name : 2007 CLC 167 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Mst. KHAIRAN BIBI
Side Opponent : GHULAM HASSAN
----Ss. 8 & 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.115---Islamic Law ---"Gift "
and "will"---Distinction---Interpretation of document---Dispute between the
parties was with regard to attestation of mutation bearing words Tamleek-e-
Warasat---Parties were legal heirs of deceased owner and plaintiffs asserted that
the mutation was an attestation of Will having no legal sanctity---Plaintiffs
claimed their share in the suit land---Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court
decreed the suit and appeal respectively in favour of plaintiffs---Plea raised by
defendants was that it was a mutation of Gift made by their father during his life
time in their favour---Validity---Will takes effect after the death of a person while
Gift during the lifetime of donor---Suit land was transferred to defendants
during the lifetime of owner and report in Roznamcha Waqiati reflected the
intention of donor as to transfer of property through Gift /Tamleek it was for
such reason that it was mentioned specifically in the report that after Tamleek
the donor had relinquished the property---Mere use of word " " (Will) did not
make the transaction as Will---Word " '' " was used in isolation and was contrary
to the intention of the donor---Courts below misread the document and had
erred while holding it as Will---Report on Roznamcha Waqiati was clearly a
transaction of Gift ---Gift in favour of a legal heir could validly be made and
there was no prohibition---Predecessor-in-interest of parties did not Gift the
property in the imminent danger of death and could not be said to have made
during Marz-ul-Maut----Judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below
were set aside as the Courts had committed material irregularity---Revision was
allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2007 PTD 651 INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-

PAKISTAN
Side Appellant : I.T.As. Nos.5441/LB, 5862/LB, 5861/LB of 2002, decided on 31st
August, 2006.
Side Opponent : I.T.As. Nos.5441/LB, 5862/LB, 5861/LB of 2002, decided on 31st
August, 2006.
--Ss. 13(1)(aa) & I48---Addition---Gift ---Rejection of Gift on the ground that date
of Gift and evidence of payments had not been produced and since there was no
blood relationship with the assessee, the Gift could not be made---Assessee
contended that First Appellate Authority was-not justified to set aside the
addition made under S.13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for re-
consideration, as the girt transaction was fully verifiable and authentic in the
eyes of Law and addition was liable to be deleted---Validity---Donors had sworn
affidavits and had appeared before the Taxation of ficer and had been examined
under 5.148 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and admittedly they were
existing taxpayers---Rejection of version of assessee on flimsy grounds was not
justified---For Gift s, there was no requirement under the Law that Gift could be
made to the blood relationship only---Donors were men of means and had
shown Gift s in their respective income tax assessments and there was no valid
reason to reject the Gift s, as oral Gift was as valid as written Gift under the
Islamic Law and "of fer", "acceptance" and "possession" were the only three
conditions under the Law for performance of Gift , which had been fulfilled---
Addition was deleted by the Appellate Tribunal in the circumstances.

Citation Name : 2006 PLD 444 SUPREME-Court

Side Appellant : SARDAR MUHAMMAD
Side Opponent : Mst. SHARIFAN BIBI
---S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXIII, R.3---Constitution of
Pakistan '(1973), Art.185 (3)---Declaration of title---Compromise decree---Plea not
raised---Effect---Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below---Father of
plaintiffs, in earlier round of litigation, consented to the share of widow of his
brother and suit was decided accordingly---Later on widow Gift ed her land in
favour of her adopted daughter---Plaintiffs assailed mutation of Gift and claimed
their share in the property left by the widow---Trial Court and Lower Appellate
Court concurrently dismissed the suit and appeal respectively---Judgments of
both the Courts below were maintained by High Court in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction---Validity---Plaintiffs' case was not that they were deprived of their
legal share as excessive land was devolved upon the widow pursuant to the Gift
---Case of plaintiffs before High Court was that Trial Court had not framed
proper issues and moreso the evidence could not be appreciated in its true
perspective, which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice---Such new plea
pressed into service did not even find mention in memorandum of petition for
leave to appeal---Point which had not been urged before lower Court and was
not mentioned in petition for leave to appeal, could not be allowed to be raised at
the hearing of the petition---Plaintiffs were successors of the husband of
predecessor-in-interest of defendants but land in question exclusively belonged
to the widow and devolved upon her under Islamic Law to the extent of 1/4th
share, such land could not be given to plaintiffs, who were not her legal heirs---
Plaintiffs had no cause of action when Gift was already restricted to the Law ful
share of predecessor-in-interest of defendants and hence question of annulment
of the Gift did not arise which was never challenged by predecessor-in, interest
of plaintiffs but impliedly which culminated into a compromise between the
predecessor-in-interest, of plaintiffs and the widow---Supreme Court declined to
interfere with the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below---Leave to
appeal was refused.

Citation Name : 2006 PLD 15 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : Mst. NUSRAT ZOHRA
Side Opponent : Mst. AZHRA BIBI and others
--Gift ---Donor, power of ---Preferential Gift , a transaction termed as Zulm---
Donor made Gift of his all property in favour of his two daughters from one
wife, while plaintiff being his daughter from other wife was excluded out of his
property---Donor appeared in Court as witness in favour of donee daughters and
stated that no Gift was ever made in favour of plaintiff daughter---Suit-land was
Gift ed to donees who accepted the same and possession of the land was also
handed over to them---Trial Court dismissed the suit but Appellate Court
allowed the appeal of plaintiff, which judgment was set aside by High Court in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the suit was dismissed---Plea raised by
plaintiff was that preferential Gift in favour of two daughters by her father, while
depriving her from the property, was an act of Zulm---Validity---Authenticity
and genuineness of the statement of donor could not be questioned because the
Gift was neither vague nor uncertain---Preferential Gift made in favour of one or
two by donor in his lifetime could not be termed as 'void'---Legal heir could not
challenge validity of Gift by her ancestor during lifetime of donor---There was no
question of Zulm in the Gift made by donor excluding plaintiff, because donor
had divorced mother of plaintiff who after her abduction, had contracted second
marriage, which prompted donor to deprive plaintiff from his property---One
might not agree with the reasoning of donor but it could not be questioned by
anybody including the legal heirs and it was enough that the donor himself was
satisfied---Donor was entitled to Gift whole of his property to one of his legal
heirs and no bar had been imposed under Islamic Law ---Judgment and decree
passed by High Court did not call for any interference---Leave to appeal was
refused.

Citation Name : 2006 PLD 15 SUPREME-Court

Side Appellant : Mst. NUSRAT ZOHRA
Side Opponent : Mst. AZHRA BIBI and others
--Gift ---Donor, powers of ---Scope---Muslim donor has vast powers to alienate
his property by way of Gift during his lifetime, subject to one condition that he
should be in proper state of health and Gift is made at his own without any
coercion or inducement---Powers of a Muslim to dispose of his property by way
of Gift are unfettered---Gift cannot be invalidated only because the heirs are
deprived of their shares, but where material facts are concealed by donee, such
Gift can be declared invalid on such account---Policy of Islamic Law appears to
be to prevent a testator interfering by Will with the course of devolution of
property according to Law among his heirs, although he may give a specified
portion, as much as one third to a stranger, but it also appears that a holder of
property may, to a certain extent, defeat the policy of Law by giving in his
lifetime the whole or any part of his property to one of his sons, provided he
complies with certain forms.

Citation Name : 2006 PTD 529 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Side Appellant : Mst. JAN RANA
Side Opponent : COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PESHAWAR
---Gift ---Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered---Gift
was complete when there was a declaration of Gift by the donor, acceptance of ,
Gift , express or implied by or on behalf of the donee and delivery of possession
of the subject of the Gift by the donor to the donee---Unregistered Gift deed,
notwithstanding S.49 of Registration Act, 1908 was admissible in evidence---
Donor and the donee being brother and sister were governed by Islamic Law and
the registration of the document was not sine qua non for validity of the Gift .

Citation Name : 2006 YLR 2596 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Mst. MASHAN through Legal Heirs
Side Opponent : FAKHAR IMAM through Irshad Bibi
---Ss.96, O.XXIII, R.3 & S.12(2)--- Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), Ss.9 & 42---
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.114---Islamic Law ---Gift ---Proof ---Gift by
an unmarried old pardanashin lady in favor of her nephew, son of her deceased
brother, was subsequently challenged by lady under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Contention
of nephew was that Gift in question confirmed by virtue of consent decree could
not be assailed by the lady as consent decree operates as an estoppels---
Validity---Courts below had properly analyzed the evidence on record produced
by the both parties and given cogent reasons concurrently and correctly
concluded that it was the lady who had appeared before the Court and had
conceded the suit of the defendant nephew through which she admitted the
making of the valid Gift in his favor and there was no ambiguity or doubt about
her identification or presence before the Court---Such findings, being concurrent
were not shown to be the result of any misreading or non-reading of evidence
and therefore, could not be set aside---Certain discrepancies in sanctioning the
mutation had occurred as lady was an old illiterate woman and that nephew had
never applied for comparison of thumb-impression of lady through Finger Print
Expert but those had lost their significance and could not be made basis of
upsetting the concurrent finding of fact recorded by Courts below specially
because of lady's acknowledgment of the Gift vide consent decree which had
rightly not been upset by Courts below in proceedings under S.12(2), C.P. C.-Plea
about lack of advice to lady by a male member of her family was irrelevant
because lady was not married and both of her brothers were dead by the time,
moreover, it was proved on record that admittedly throughout her life she had
been living with her brother, father of defendant nephew, and even after demise
of brother she was being looked after by the defendant's family, hence if she had
made the Gift in favor of her minor orphan nephews, it appeared to be very
natural and for valid consideration---Held, it was the lady who executed the
compromise deed, appeared before the Court, made the statement and was duly
identified through her photograph and photocopy of the identity card and that
was sufficient proof of her appearing before the Court and admitting about the
Gift ---No misreading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out for
interference in the concurrent finding of Courts below.

Citation Name : 2006 PLD 15 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : Mst. NUSRAT ZOHRA
Side Opponent : Mst. AZHRA BIBI and others
--Gift ---Preferential Gift ---Scope---No prohibition has been laid down under
Islamic Law that a preferential Gift cannot be made, though a few jurists are of
the view that it was not prohibited, yet such act can be considered as `sinful'.