| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2891 2024 SLD 2891 2024 CLC 468 |
Sindh High Court
Civil Suit No.746 of 1998 and 645 of 2014, decided on 12th April, 2016.Date of hearing: 3rd March, 2016.
Before Salahuddin Panhwar, J
Ms. Naila Tabassum for Plaintiffs. Ehsanullah Khan for Defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 present in person.
Civil Suit No.746 of 1998 and 645 of 2014, decided on 12th April, 2016.Date of hearing: 3rd March, 2016.
Before Salahuddin Panhwar, J
Ms. Naila Tabassum for Plaintiffs. Ehsanullah Khan for Defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 present in person.
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others----Plaintiffs
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD AHMED and 2 others----Defendants
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42,54
Law: Succession Act, 1925
Section: 278
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), S.278---Oral gift---Proof---Suit for declaration, partition, administration and permanent injunction---Plaintiffs claimed that defendant No. 1 being owner of suit property gifted the same orally in favour of his mother, who accepted the same, however gift could not be mutated in record, being maintained by the Karachi Development Authority (KDA), because she was simple, old and sick lady---Later, donee died leaving behind plaintiffs and private defendants as surviving legal heirs entitled to inherit the property as per Muslim Hanfi Law---Plaintiffs asked defendant No. 1 to settle share but he refused---Defendants contested the suit and alleged that donee did not accept the gift as such plaintiffs were not entitled to get any share from the suit property---Validity---Defendant No. 1/donor in his affidavit in evidence admitted that the gift deed duly signed by him, was handed over to his late mother as token of love and gratitude in 1989 which she had refused to accept---From said admission, it remained no more disputed that there was a valid, legal and bona fide offer by the donor/defendant No.1 to which the donor at no material time claimed to be under any duress, coercion or result of fraud, therefore, it could safely be concluded that there was a valid declaration of gift by the donor/defendant No. 1---Admittedly the status and relation of the donor and donee was that of son and mother and at relevant time both were residing in the subject property---In such eventuality, requirement of delivery of possession stood completed only by mere assertions and recital thereof in that regard---Normally, the onus probandi was upon the beneficiary/donee but where the donor admitted bona fide offer but denied acceptance thereof by the donee then position changed because in such eventuality the donor would be beneficiary of proving refusal/denial of offer---Evidently, donee had active knowledge and notice of gift and preparation of such gift deed hence the act of the donee receiving the gift deed and keeping it (original) with her gave rise to nothing but a conclusion that donee had…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492