Not necessary for a donor to furnish reasons for making a gift yet no gift in the ordinary course

14. The fraud and collusion alleged by the plaintiff may also be unearth from the intention and motive of defendant No.1. It is to be noted that defendant No.1 was not the legal heir of deceased Ghulam Qadir nor in the ordinary circumstances was entitled to get the suit property. Though it is not necessary for a donor to furnish reasons for making a gift yet no gift in the ordinary course of human conduct be made without reason or justification unless the donor is divested of power of reasons and logic and unless he/she is a person of unsound mind. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Barkat Ali through L.Rs and others v Muhammad Ismail through L.Rs and others” (2002 SCMR 1938) has held that in the wake of frivolous gifts generally made to deprive the females in the family from the course of inheritance prevalent at present times, the Courts are not divested of the powers to scrutinize the reasons and justification for a gift so that no injustice is done to the rightful claimant and no course of inheritance is bye passed. In the instant case, no reason has been furnished for making gift in the impugned mutations. The attorney of defendant No.1, that is, Iftikhar, however, while appearing before the Trial Court as DW-1 stated that Ghulam Qadir had transferred the suit land in favour of Fatima Bibi for God’s sake ( طے ہللاساو .(It means that love and affection of mother was not the consideration of gift but instead the intention behind the transaction was to please God Almighty. If that was the intention of Ghulam Qadir, he could not ignore his real daughter (plaintiff) and deprive her of her share of inheritance, ordained by the Allah Almighty. Even otherwise the fraud and collusion stood established from the date itself i.e. 16.06.1999 on which date the alleged gift mutations No.3847 and 3846 were sanctioned. The defendant No.1 had neither led any evidence to establish the fact that Ghulam Qadir in his life time was aware about the transaction of gift nor explained the reasons as to why Ghulam Qadir had not made gift directly to him; and, that why the land was firstly transferred in the name of Fatima Bibi and from her, it was gifted to him on the same date. All these facts show nothing but fraud on the part of defendant No.1, so as to deprive the plaintiff of her right of inheritance. Since the defendant No.1 had failed to justify the disinheritence of the plaintiff, the disputed gift mutations as per principle settled in the case of “Fareed and others v. Muhammad Tufail and another” (2018 SCMR 139) cannot be held valid. In view of above, findings of the Courts below in respect of issues No.2 & 3 are reversed and the said issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Part of Judgment

 THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE 

Civil Revision

1777836.955-15

2018 LHC 701