Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 129

Law: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908

Section: VI (4)

Summary:

Held that mere allegation and/or averment by the donor (husband) in respect of the gift, having been procured by the donee (wife), through fraud, albeit without disclosing the particulars thereof, is not sufficient to shift the onus upon the wife to prove the valid execution of the gift. Judgment of the Appellate Court below was set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored.

The case involves a dispute between Mian Ghulam Dastgeer (respondent) and his wife (petitioner) regarding a property gift mutation. The respondent claimed that he never gifted the property (7 kanal 15 marla) to his wife and alleged fraud, bribery, and collusion with revenue officials. The Trial Court dismissed his claim, but the Appellate Court overturned the decision, declaring the mutation fraudulent and canceling it.

The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to provide specific details of fraud or involve the allegedly corrupt revenue officials in the case. The court analyzed whether a husband gifting property to his wife requires the same level of proof as other donees and whether mere fraud allegations shift the burden of proof. The ruling emphasized that in a marital relationship, especially when the wife is a housewife, the husband must provide clear evidence of fraud. The court found the respondent’s claims weak, inconsistent, and unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, his failure to include the revenue officials as necessary parties made the suit legally flawed.