Land through oral gift in his favour vide mutation

11. It was the case of defendant No.1 that firstly his step brother Ghulam Qadir during his life time gifted the suit land to his mother Fatima Bibi vide mutation No.3847 dated 16.06.1999 (Exh.P-3) and mutation No.3760 dated 17.02.1998 (Exh.P-4); and, that subsequently Fatima Bibi transferred the said land through oral gift in his favour vide mutation No.3846 dated 16.06.1999 (Exh.P1) and mutation No.3850 dated 26.08.1999 (Exh.P-2). According to principle settled in the cases of “Mst. Raj Bibi and others v. Province of Punjab through District Collector , Okara and 5 others” (2001 SCMR 1591),Mst. Kalsoom Bibi & another v Muhammad Arif & others (2005 SCMR 135) “Aurangzeb through L.Rs and others v. Muhammad Jafar and another” (2007 SCMR 236) and “Rehmatullah and others v. Saleh Khan and others” (2007 SCMR 729), , “Aurangzeb through L.Rs and others v. Muhammad Jafar and another” (2007 SCMR 236), “Muhammad Iqbal and another v. Mukhtar Ahmad through L.Rs” (2008 SCMR 855) and “Muhammad Ejaz and 2 others v. Mst. Khalida Awan and another” (2010 SCMR 342).”Allah Ditta and others v. Manak alias Muhammad Siddique and others” (2017 SCMR 402) and “Mrs. Khalida Azhar v. Viqar Rustam Bakhshi and others” (2018 SCMR 30), the beneficiary of the transaction, that is, defendant No.1 was bound not only to prove the disputed mutations but also to prove the actual factum of gift by falling back on three ingredients, that is,

•  (i) declaration of gift by the donor; 
• (ii) acceptance of gift by the donee; and, 
• (iii) delivery of possession of corpus. In this perspective, I have examined the evidence available on record. The defendant No.1 neither in his written statement stated the date, time, place and name of witnesses before whom the declaration and acceptance of gift was made nor any of the witness who appeared on behalf of the defendants made any statement that proposal and acceptance of gift was made in his presence. Failure to establish the twin requirement of gift i.e. proposal and acceptance of gift was fatal to the claim of defendant No.1. This aspect of the matter was not considered by either of the Courts below and thus, their findings on issues No.2 & 3 cannot be approved. 

Part of Judgment

 THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE 

Civil Revision

1777836.955-15

2018 LHC 701