Mst. FARZANA ZIA vs Mst — 2024 SCMR 916 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Mst. FARZANA ZIA VS Mst. SAADIA ANDALEEB S. 25---Legal heirs---Release deed/ Relinquishment deed---Scope---Substratum of the indenture of the Release Deed or the Relinquishment Deed encompasses the conveyance of right, title, or interest in the immovable property by the legal heirs in the joint property by which, often, a co-owner, renounces his rights in favour of another legal heir with consideration or even without consideration or on account of some family settlement, but the parties to a relinquishment deed must be the co-owners/co-sharers---The deed of release or relinquishment should be cautiously put in order which must encapsulate, the date when the right to the property was given up; purpose of giving up the right; consideration, if any; consent of the party giving up the right in the property, etc. with the aspiration to put an end to any unresolved or unsettled issue or differences between the parties to prevent future litigation. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 916 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. FARZANA ZIA VS Mst. SAADIA ANDALEEB Ss. 123 & 129---Islamic law---Gift---Scope and principles---Transfer of Property Act, 1882, has no application to the gift envisioned and encapsulated under the Muslim Law and for this reason, Sections 123 and 129 of the Transfer of Property Act can neither surpass nor outweigh or preponderate the matters of gifts contemplated under the Muslim Law---However, the donor should be of sound mind and understand the legal implications of making the gift, free from any coercion, duress, or undue influence---Under the Muslim Law, the constituents of a valid gift are tender, acceptance, and possession of property---Muslim can devolve his property under Muslim Law by means of inter vivos (gift) or through testamentary dispositions (will)---Islamic law does not make any distinction between movable or immovable property regarding the conception of gift, rather any property may be gifted by any person having ownership and dominion over the property intended to be gifted on fulfilling requisite formalities. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 916 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. FARZANA ZIA VS Mst. SAADIA ANDALEEB Ss. 100 & 115---Revision---Second appeal---Scope---High Court has the powers to reevaluate the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the lower courts in appropriate cases but cannot upset such crystalized findings if the same are based on relevant evidence or without any misreading or non-reading of evidence---If the facts have been justly tried by two courts and the same conclusion has been reached by both the courts concurrently then it would not be judicious to revisit it for drawing some other conclusion or interpretation of evidence in a second appeal under Section 100 or under revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C., because any such attempt would also be against the doctrine of finality. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 916 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. FARZANA ZIA VS Mst. SAADIA ANDALEEB S. 25---Release deed/Relinquishment deed, authenticity of---Fraud and misrepresentation by brother to deprive his sisters of their share in inheritance---Subject property devolved upon all the legal heirs---Brother (respondent No.2) took the other legal heirs to district court in the guise of making transfer of the property in the name of all legal heirs---Copy of a public notice published in the newspaper was available on case file which demonstrated that the legal heirs of the deceased had moved an application for transfer of the subject property in their name---This public notice showed that the application was made for a joint transfer and not in the sole name of the brother---It was asserted by the brother that he gave an extra amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- after selling a plot owned by his father and gave the share of the plaintiffs (sisters) amounting to Rs. 75,000/- from the another plot---If the brother paid the inheritance share of his sisters in some other property, it does not allow or absolve the brother from paying their share in other properties of their deceased father---Brother was in a dominant position and all title documents were in his possession---So far as the veracity or authenticity of the release deed was concerned, both marginal witnesses contradicted the version of the brother---Defence witness deposed that he did not know that the release deed was made, while the other defence witness admitted that the signatures were not made in his presence---Both the marginal witnesses deposed during the cross examination that they were told that the release deed was meant for distribution amongst siblings and that the property was being distributed---No family settlement was produced on record to show the distribution of shares amongst the legal heirs for the estate of their predecessor---Item No. 55 of Schedule 1 and Section 29(a) of the Stamp Act 1899 Act are germane to the deed of release---Indenture of the release is required to be registered compulsorily and for the purposes of stamp duty, the assessment should be made on the basis of the amount of the claim or value of the property---Neither anything on record showed that any consideration was paid to the sisters against the suit property nor any individual specific share of each releasor was carved out or specified in the release deed which was allegedly relinquished by them in favour of the brother---No stamp duty was assessed or paid on the part of the relinquished share or the value of the property---No logical conclusion could be drawn as to why both sisters, who had their own children and husbands, executed a release deed out of love and affection in favour of their brother and deprived their own children---If everything was done with free will and consent or there was a conscious abandonment of rights, then the best marginal witnesses to the deed would be the husbands of both sisters, but this was avoided by the brother, which also transpired that the sisters had no independent advice to understand the nature of the document to safeguard their interest but they signed it in good faith on the understanding that the property was being transferred in the name of all legal heirs---Record reflects that neither the joint sub-registrar was summoned by the defendant nor one of the sisters ever appeared before the Tehsildar/sub-registrar for any such purpose which fact was admitted by the brother in his cross examination---Trial Court, after proper assessment and comprehension of the entire evidence, reached the correct conclusion that the preparation of the release deed, its execution, signatures of the plaintiffs (sisters) over the same, and the appearance of the plaintiffs before the joint sub-registrar was doubtful and the release deed and subsequent transfer was declared void ab-initio and ineffective---On account of misrepresentation and deception, the share of the sisters was siphoned off/divested from the estate of their deceased father which devolved upon them according to Muslim Law of inheritance---Release deed was secured in bitter violation and contravention of Section 25 of the Contract Act, 1872, and rightly declared invalid by the Trial and Appellate Courts---Appeal was allowed; impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside and the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court in favour of the sisters were restored.

Mst. FARZANA ZIA vs Mst — 2024 SCMR 916 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR