Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Section: 115, XLI Rule 22

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 79, 100

REMARKS

Essentials of a valid gift and evidentiary value of a 30 years old documents. The petitioners claimed ownership based on an alleged oral gift from Muzaffar Hussain to their father, Bakht Rawan. However, the court found that the petitioners failed to prove the essential elements of a valid gift and their evidence was inconsistent and unreliable. In contrast, the respondents produced a 30-year-old document regarding the partition of the property, which was supported by official records and witness testimony. The court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference, dismissing the petition and leaving the parties to bear their own costs

 Summary of Judgment:Gift Dispute

This civil revision (C.R No. 178-M/2017) was filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against the concurrent findings of two lower courts, both of which dismissed the petitioners’ claim of ownership over a disputed house allegedly gifted to their father, Bakht Rawan, by Muzaffar Hussain. The petitioners failed to prove the essential elements of a valid oral gift — offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession. Contrarily, the respondents successfully proved partition through official documents dating back to 1972 and subsequent valid sale deeds. The court held that no illegality, misreading, or non-reading of evidence occurred, and hence no interference under Section 115 CPC was warranted.