Mst. SADIQAN BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Oral gift — 2025 CLC 1158 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

Mst. SADIQAN BEGUM VS MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Oral gift---Essential ingredients---Onus to prove---Exclusion of uneducated female member of the family from her share in inheritance---Female heirs' inheritable rights must be protected---Shariah and inheritance law protections to female heirs emphasized---Donee's absence from witness box to prove the alleged gift, effect of---Incurable defect---Fatal defect under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---The instant matter brought into focus the jurisprudential and evidentiary imperatives surrounding the alleged oral transfer of immovable property by way of gift, particularly where such a claim was advanced to circumvent the vested inheritance rights of a female legal heir---Petitioner/plaintiff and respondent/defendant were real siblings and the only legal heirs of their deceased father, who passed away on 08.10.1998---The dispute concerned agricultural land (the "Suit Property")---The petitioner/plaintiff (sister of respondent/defendant who was the beneficiary of the gift) filed a suit on 24.02.2011 seeking cancellation of mutation No. 600 dated 29.04.1998, recorded as a gift in favor of her brother (respondent/defendant) and alleged that the gift mutation was obtained fraudulently and without knowledge, consent, or valid intention of their deceased father---It was contended by the petitioner that after their father's death, the petitioner trusted her brother's assurance that her share had been included in an inheritance mutation; that she accepted small payments under the impression they were her share of the property income; that upon facing financial hardship and requesting to sell her share, the brother refused and she discovered the alleged mutation of gift; that she had no knowledge of such a gift, asserting it was forged and not in accordance with law---It was the case of the respondent that his claim was firmly anchored in lawful entitlement under a gift dated 18.04.1998 from his father which was made during his life---He alleged that all requirements of a valid gift (offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession) were fulfilled---Held: Present case was a typical case where a woman was deprived of her rightful inheritance under the pretense of an alleged oral gift made by the deceased father to her brother---Such claims were often used by male heirs to exclude female relatives, prompting courts to remain vigilant against fraudulent practices involving oral gifts, which were frequently employed to deny women their legal entitlements---The essential legal requirements for validating such transactions, by now, have been firmly established in our jurisprudence and require no further elaboration---While juxtaposing the facts of the case in hand, High Court was of the opinion that both the courts below had acted illegally and with material irregularity while exercising jurisdiction---The respondent as the principal beneficiary and direct participant in the purported gift was the most vital witness to establish its essential elements, yet he conspicuously chose not to appear before the court, offering no reasonable justification for his absence, and instead relied on the testimony of his son, "TS" (DW-7), who appeared merely as his attorney---In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the unequivocal position in terms of Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, it did not behoove to reason as to how such fatal and inherent defect escaped the attention of both the Courts below---Respondent/defendant's son was in no position to testify on behalf of his father regarding offer and acceptance of gift---The written statement filed by the defendant/respondent did not find mention the presence of DW-7 on the alleged occasion of oral gift, thus, the mandatory ingredients of offer of gift by the donor and acceptance thereof by donee, had gone abegging in this case---Therefore, non-appearance of defendant/respondent was an incurable defect in his quest to prove the gift---Concurrent findings of the courts below fell within the exception of interference for exercising revisional jurisdiction of the court and the same were therefore set aside---The civil revision was allowed and the suit filed by the petitioner (plaintiff) was decreed as prayed for.

Mst. SADIQAN BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Oral gift — 2025 CLC 1158 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC