RUSTAM KHAN vs Mst — 2026 PLD 53 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

RUSTAM KHAN VS Mst. PATHANI through Legal Heirs S.41---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.39---Suit filed by lady for cancellation of gift mutation---Necessary details as to time, date, place, witnesses, offer and acceptance of such gift not proved---Effect---Respondent (lady plaintiff) had challenged the authenticity of gift mutation claiming the said mutation as fake, forged and fraudulent one as she never gifted the same to petitioner and she, being a parda nasheen and aged lady, had been defrauded by the respondent/defendant, whereas, petitioner claimed to have obtained a portion of suit property from the said defendant by way of a valid gift---Record transpired that the petitioner was also a witness of impugned gift mutation and after attesting impugned mutation, the respondent/defendant transferred a portion of land to the petitioner; hence, petitioner claimed the protection under S.41 of the Transfer of Property Act and as such, the rights of petitioner were subservient to the rights of respondent/defendant---Being beneficiary, a heavy burden was lying upon the defendants to prove the episode of alleged gift by giving details of offer and acceptance besides telling time, date, place and witnesses of such offer and acceptance---Mere entry and attestation of the gift mutation does not ipso facto overcome the need of evidence for the proof of offer and acceptance and witnesses of a gift mutation too cannot be assumed to be the witnesses of the episode of offer and acceptance, as they are only the witnesses of mutation---Moreover, respondent being donee and petitioner being attesting witness of mutation were required to give details of time, date, place and witnesses of the purported offer and acceptance in their written statements but they omitted and even their evidence was silent in said regard---Petitioner failed to point out any illegality or infirmity committed by both the Courts below while passing impugned judgments for cancellation of gift mutation---High Court maintained the concurrent findings passed by both the Courts below---Revision, filed by defendant, was dismissed, in circumstances. O.XLI, R.27---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.39---Suit filed by lady for cancellation of gift-mutation---Additional evidence---Scope---Permission sought to produce additional evidence of Tehsildar who attested the impugned mutation---Validity---Such contention of petitioner could not be entertained at belated stage and if he was allowed to record statement of Tehsildar, even then, in the absence of proof of a valid gift coupled with the fact that respondent/plaintiff being parda nasheen, illiterate and old lady was neither identified by any close blood relative nor she was having any independent advice, such statement of Tehsildar would not be sufficient to change the fate of case---Petitioner failed to point out any illegality or infirmity committed by both the Courts below while passing impugned judgments for cancellation of gift mutation---High Court maintained concurrent findings passed by both the Courts below---Revision, filed by defendant, was dismissed, in circumstances.

RUSTAM KHAN vs Mst — 2026 PLD 53 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD