Case Summary & Legal Holding

This judicial decision was delivered by the LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE. The matter involves proceedings between Mst. SADIQAN BEGUM and MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUEHonorable Justice Khalid IshaqMian Tariq Hussain,Khawaja Mohsin Abbas, officially reported as 2025 CLC 1158. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2025 C L C 1158 [Lahore] Before Khalid Ishaq, J Mst. SADIQAN BEGUM ---Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE ---Respondent Civil Revision No. 27145 of 2017, heard on 24th February, 2025. (a) Gift--- ----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. (b) Gift--- ----Oral gift---Burden of proof, shifting of---Scope---Burden of proof shifts upon denial of gift---When validity and correctness of a gift transaction is challenged it becomes mandatory and essential for the beneficiary to prove the valid execution of same---Female member of the family deprived by male member of her share in inheritance---In order to prove her case, the petitioner/plaintiff who was deprived by his brother from inheritance of their deceased father, appeared as PW3 and supported the contents of the plaint---She deposed that her deceased father never gifted the suit property to the respondent/defendant (brother of petitioner/plaintiff) and the same was outcome of fraud---She specifically stated that she was never aware of any such transaction---This very statement of the petitioner/plaintiff had clearly shifted the onus of proving onto the respondent/defendant (brother of petitioner/plaintiff) being beneficiary of oral gift which he failed to discharge by shying away from appearance as a witness---The respondent/defendant instead of appearing before the court merely relied on testimony of his son who merely appeared as his father's attorney---It was an unfortunate fact that male members of families deprive their female relatives of their legal entitlement to inheritance and in doing so Sharia and law was violated---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 suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff (female legal heir deprived from inheritance) was decreed as prayed for---Civil revision was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Ejaz and 2 others v. Mst. Khalida Awan and another 2010 SCMR 342 rel. (c) Gift--- ----Inheritance---Oral gift---Deceptive mechanism to usurp inheritance share of female legal heirs---Proof---Threshold test---Legal standards for validating oral gifts---Scope---In our society there has been an unstoppable bent to invent grotesque devices conceived to deprive daughters, sisters, mothers, widows, orphans etc of their share of inheritance; the 'Oral Gift' being the most fancied of all, employed by unscrupulous male members of the family---It is for this reason that there is overwhelming settled jurisprudence in this country to arrest all such emblems of frauds, forgery, impersonations and uncalled for persuasions, nevertheless, the menace continues---The threshold tests of such transactions are now etched in our jurisprudence as tablet of stone, hardly requiring any further quest, however, if one needs reiteration, following principles be strictly adhered to, particularly in the context of the case in hand: (i) Beneficiary of the impugned transaction of gift/transfer of immovable property(s) bears the heavy onus to prove the transaction; (ii) The beneficiary of a gift has to plead and prove three mandatory ingredients of gift i.e. declaration/offer by the donor, acceptance of gift by the donee; and, delivery of possession under the gift; (iii) The possession of immovable property by one of the siblings/LRs to the exclusion of others will be treated as constructive possession on behalf of all others, unless proved otherwise ; (iv) In case of oral transactions, it is mandatory for a beneficiary of oral transaction to prove the same through positive evidence by supplying mandatory material particulars in the pleadings i.e. the time and date, the venue, and the persons/witnesses in whose presence the alleged transaction was brought about; (v) The oral transaction of transfer of immovable property, be it sale, gift/tamleek, surrender or will etc. has to be proved separately from its incorporation/attestation in revenue record by way of sanctioning of the mutation since a mutation cannot by itself be considered a document of title; (vi) Where a gift, which excluded a legal heir, irrespective of whether such transaction is evidenced by registered deed, the donee is required to prove original transaction and must justify the disinheritance of a legal heir from the estate; (vii) Parties are bound by their pleadings; no amount of evidence can be led beyond the scope of pleadings; and in case any such evidence is brought on record, the Court cannot consider and rely upon the same and has to discard it; (viii) Mere efflux of time does not extinguish the right of inheritance, thus, the question of limitation in case of inheritance and fraud is not attracted and becomes insignificant.

Muhammad Sarwar v. Mumtaz Bibi and others 2020 SCMR 276; Mst. Parveen (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others 2022 SCMR 64; Mst. Hayat Bibi and others v. Alamzeb and others 2022 SCMR 13; Islam ud Din (deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Noor Jahan (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2016 SCMR 986; Phull Peer Shah v. Hafeez Fatima 2016 SCMR 1225; Peer Baksh through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Khanzadi and others 2016 SCMR 1417; Amjad Ikram v. Mst. Asiya Kausar and 2 others 2015 SCMR 1; Ibrahim Kamal v. Mst. Malooka Bibi and others 2012 SCMR 1; Khaliqdad Khan and others v. Mst. Zeenat Khatoon and others 2010 SCMR 1370; Bilal Hussain Shah and another v. Dilawar Shah PLD 2018 SC 698; Khalid Hussain and others v. Nazir Ahmad and others 2021 SCMR 1986; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others v. Shah Faisal Wahab and others 2023 SCMR 1642; Mst. Tahira Samina and others v. Javed Saeed Tariq and others 2024 SCMR 24; Mst. Saadia v. Mst. Gul Bibi 2016 SCMR 662; Khalida Idrees and others v. Anas Farooq Chaudhary and others PLD 2018 Lah. 819; Mst. Rasheeda Bibi v. Mukhtar Ahmad and others 2008 SCMR 1384; Islam-ud-Din through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Noor Jahan through L.Rs. and others 2016 SCMR 986; Mst. Shafqat Parveen v. Muhammad Iftikhar Amjad and others 2012 SCMR 1602; Rehmat Noor v. Zulqarnain 2023 SCMR 1645; Syed Ahmad v. Ali Akbar and others 2021 SCMR 743; Agha Syed Mushtaque Ali Shah v. Mst. Bibi Gul Jan and others 2016 SCMR 910; Fareed and others v. Muhammad Tufail and another 2018 SCMR 139; Muhammad Shafiq Ullah and others v. Allah Bakhsh (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2021 SCMR 763; Saddaruddin (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Sultan Khan (since deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2021 SCMR 642; Muhammad Riaz and others v. Mst. Badshah Begum and others 2021 SCMR 605; Atta Muhammad and others v. Mst. Munir Sultan (deceased) through her L.Rs. and others 2021 SCMR 73; Muhammad Yaqoob v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others PLD 2020 SC 338; Jubilee General Insurance Co. Ltd. Karachi v. Ravi Steel Company, Lahore PLD 2020 SC 324; Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Sakina Bibi and others 2020 SCMR 1021; Moiz Abbas v. Mrs Latifa and others 2019 SCMR 74; Naveed Akram and others v. Muhammad Anwar 2018 SCMR 1095; Allah Ditta and others v. Manak alias Muhammad Siddique and others 2017 SCMR 402; Muhammad Nawaz through L.Rs. v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan through L.Rs. and others 2013 SCMR 1360; Muhammad Nawaz through L.Rs. v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan through L.Rs. and others 2013 SCMR 1300; Mst. Brikhna v. Faiz Ullah Khan and others 2020 SCMR 1681; Fazal Ellahi (deceased) through its Legal Heirs v. Mst. Zainab Bibi 2019 SCMR 1930; Ghulam Sarwar (deceased) through L.Rs. and others's case 2019 SCMR 567; Phul Peer Shah v. Hafeez Fatima 2016 SCMR 1225; Muhammad Ishaq v. Muhammad Shafiq and 9 others 2007 SCMR 1773; Haji Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad Ahmed and others 2007 SCMR 1961; Rehmatullah and others v. Saleh Khan and others 2007 SCMR 729; Aurangzeb through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Jaffar and another 2007 SCMR 236; Mst. Janntan and others v. Mst. Taggi through L.Rs. and others PLD 2006 SC 332; Muhammad Akram and another v. Altaf Ahmad PLD 2003 SC 688; Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel un Nisa and 5 others 2001 SCMR 338; Muhammad Ishaq and another v. Mst. Gazala Riaz and 8 others 1997 SCMR 974; Mst. Noor Fatima and another v. Begum Bibi and another 1990 SCMR 629; Fareed and others v. Muhammad Tufail and another 2018 SCMR 139; Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others 2014 SCMR 914; Combined Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Wali Bhai and others PLD 2016 SC 730; Muhammad Iqbal v. Mehboob Alam 2015 SCMR 21; Messrs Essa Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited and another 2014 SCMR 922; Mohammad Boota (deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Fatima daughter of Gohar Ali and others 2023 SCMR 1901; Noor Din (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Pervaiz Akhtar and others 2023 SCMR 1928; Salamat Ali and others v. Muhammad Din and others PLD 2022 SC 353; Syed Kausar Ali Shah and others v. Syed Farhat Hussain Shah and others 2022 SCMR 1558; Faqir Ali and others v. Sakina Bibi and others PLD 2022 SC 85; Muhammad Sharif and others v. MCB Bank Limited and others 2021 SCMR 1158; Haji Wajdad v. Provincial Government through Secretary Board of Revenue, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and others 2020 SCMR 2046; Shabla and others v. Ms. Jahan Afroz Kilat and others 2020 SCMR 352; Ghulam Farid and another v. Sher Rehman through L.Rs. 2016 SCMR 862; Syed Mehmood Ali Shah v. Zulfiqar Ali and 5 others PLD 2013 SC 364; Messrs Paramount Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise Appellate Tribunal and another 2012 SCMR 1860; Muhammad Iqbal and 5 others v. Allah Bachaya and 18 others 2005 SCMR 1447; Muhammad Zubair and others v. Muhammad Sharif 2005 SCMR 1217; Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others PLD 2015 SC 212; Khan Muhammad through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Khatoon Bibi and others 2017 SCMR 1476; Muhammad Mahmood Shah v. Syed Khalid Hussain Shah and others 2015 SCMR 869; Rehmatullah and others v. Saleh Khan and others 2007 SCMR 729; Arshad Khan v. Mst. Resham Jan and others 2005 SCMR 1859; Khair Din v. Mst. Salaman and others PLD 2002 SC 677; Mst. Gohar Khanum and others v. Mst. Jamila Jan and others 2014 SCMR 801 and Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 rel. Mst. Nagina Begum v. Mst. Tahzim Akhtar and others 2009 SCMR 623 ref. (d) Gift--- ----Oral gift, proof of---Constructive possession, principle of---Scope---Continuous possession by male heir deemed constructive on behalf of sister (female heir)---No presumption of gift merely due to possession of sole male heir---Burden of proof not discharged by mere possession---In absence of proof of a valid gift the continuous possession of the respondent/defendant (brother of petitioner/plaintiff) being the only male surviving member of the family was constructive possession on behalf of her sister (petitioner/plaintiff), an uneducated village lady---Possession of the suit property by the only brother of the petitioner/plaintiff lady could not solely confirm the transaction of the impugned gift---Merely because the respondent/defendant (brother) was in possession of the land did not mean, let alone established, that the land was gifted to him, however, it itself confirmed that he took advantage of his gender and position and made the best out of the vulnerability of a dependent female---Civil revision was allowed and suit filed by petitioner/plaintiff (female heir) was decreed. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VI, R.7---Oral gift---Proof---Failure to plead essential ingredients of oral gift---Oral gift claims must disclose time, place, and witnesses in the pleadings---Written statement lacking particulars of oral gift---No mention of date, time, venue or witnesses of the alleged transaction---Inherent pleading defects cannot be cured by subsequent evidence---Evidence beyond pleadings is impermissible---Defendant's (beneficiary's) failure to plead core elements of gift rendered the entire gift transaction unsustainable in law---A perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant/respondent led to only one inescapable conclusion that the defendant had failed to plead the necessary ingredients of oral transaction of gift---Neither the specific venue of the oral transaction of gift was mentioned nor its date, time and witnesses had been spelt out---So far as the date of impugned oral transaction was concerned, it further destroyed the case of the defendant/respondent; para 3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement pleaded that on the day of transaction of oral gift i.e. 18.04.1998 rappat roznamcha waqiati No. 371 was recorded by the Patwari of revenue estate which made it abundantly clear that no amount of evidence could cure this inherent defect of pleadings, which conspicuously failed to put forth the name of the witnesses of the oral transaction, and the exact date, time and venue thereof---Statements of defendant's son were beyond the scope of pleadings and in terms of O. VI, R. 7 of C.P.C., no amount of evidence could be led or considered which was beyond pleadings---The suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff (female legal heir deprived from inheritance) was decreed as prayed for---Civil revision was allowed, in circumstances. (f) Islamic law--- ----Inheritance---Oral gift---Relinquishment of inheritance share by vulnerable female heirs in favour of male heirs---Such relinquishment of inheritance share by female heirs is contrary to public policy and Shariah---Strict burden to prove voluntary relinquishment by female legatee---Advantageous familial positions cannot be used to extract implied consent from vulnerable females to relinquish their inheritance share---Inheritance rights of female heirs must be jealously guarded---In the present case the plaintiff's/petitioner's entitlement in her father's estate was a common ground; being a female in a muslim household, it was her due, conferred by Divine Law, recognized by the law of the land; it was so ordained in Sura Al-Nisa (4/10)---Given the preponderance of conferment, such a right, rooted into personal law, has to be jealously guarded, therefore, a heavy onus is cast upon the claimant to demonstrate that a female legatee had parted with her entitlement by choice and for considerations, consciously, without duress or uncalled for persuasions by those placed qua her in advantageous positions---Male heirs frequently resorted to fraud and other tactics to deprive female heirs from their share of inheritance---Such deprivation caused suffering to those deprived, and it also unnecessarily taxed the judicial system of the country, resulting in needless waste of resources---Each and every day that a male heir deprived a female heir was also an abomination because it contravened what has been ordained by Almighty Allah---Civil revision was allowed and suit filed by petitioner/plaintiff (female heir) was decreed. Mst. Aksar Jan and others v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others 2025 SCMR 88; Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1; Shabla and others v. Ms. Jahan Afroz Khilat and others 2020 SCMR 352; Tahsimullah v. Mst. Parveen (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2022 SCMR 346; Mst. Parveen (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Muhammad pervaiz and others 2022 SCMR 64 and Ghulam Qasim and others v. Mst. Razia Begum and others PLD 2021 SC 812 rel. (g) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S.42---Oral gift---Mutation---Proof and scope---Mutation alone does not confer legal title to immovable property---No evidence existed of the alleged oral gift transaction---Having concluded that there was absolutely no evidence regarding transaction of impugned gift and that a mutation could not by itself be considered a document of title, it was evident that even the impugned mutation had not been proved in terms of S. 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, which required that such mutation had to be presented and sanctioned in the common assembly (Jalsa-e-Aam) of the estate concerned---Civil revision was allowed and suit filed by petitioner/plaintiff (female heir) was decreed. Mian Tariq Hussain for Petitioner. Respondent proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.02.2023. Khawaja Mohsin Abbas, Additional Advocate General for Respondent (on Court's call). Date of hearing: 24th February, 2025. JUDGMENT KHALID ISHAQ, J.---Through this Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.), the petitioner calls into question the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. The petitioner is aggrieved of dismissal of her Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction (the "Suit"), seeking cancellation of gift mutation No. 600 dated 29.04.1998 ("Impugned Mutation") in favour of her brother. The Suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Pir Mahal (Trial Court) vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2014 (Trial Court Judgment), which judgment and decree was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Pir Mahal (Appellate Court) vide judgment and decreed dated 18.02.2017 (Impugned Judgment). For case of reference, the ptitioner Mst. Sadiqan Begum shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'Plaintiff/Petitioner' and the respondent Muhammad Siddique as 'Respondent/Defendant'. 2. Brief facts of the case are, as culled out with able assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that one Muhammad Ibrahim (Deceased) predecessor-in-interest of the parties was admittedly owner of land measuring 59-Kanals and 18-Marlas in Chak No. 672/13 G.B, Tehsil Kamalia District Toba Tek Singh (Suit Property). Exact description and measurement of the Suit Property is laid in Para No. 01 of the plaint. Plaintiff/Petitioner and Defendant/Respondent are the only surviving legal heirs of their father Muhammad Ibrahim, who breathed his last on 08.10.1998. 3. Plaintiff/Petitioner filed the Suit on 24.02.2011 seeking cancellation of the Impugned Mutation recorded in favour of Defendant/Respondent. As per averments of the plaint, the Plaintiff/Petitioner asserted that after death of her father' (Muhammad Ibrahim), she asked her brother (Defendant/Respondent) to incorporate inheritance mutation of the Suit Property in the revenue record; that the Defendant/Respondent assured that her name has been incorporated as a heir of Muhammad Ibrahim through inheritance mutation and that she has obtained 1/3rd share from the Suit Property. As a natural corollary, being only sister and an uneducated village household lady, she believed and trusted the words of her real brother and remained satisfied about her rights; the plaint further laid that Defendant/Respondent started paying her some amount as 'thaika' of the Suit property. It is further averred in the Plaint that after the death of Plaintiff/Petitioner's husband, she faced hardships as there was no source of income for upbringing and education of her own children, therefore, in that hour of need she approached her brother for selling her share of the Suit property; pleaded that initially the Defendant/Respondent attempted to avoid any specific response to the request of the Plaintiff/ Petitioner and ultimately, prior to one month of filing of the Suit, he flatly refused to give her due share of the Suit Property. On this, the Plaintiff/Petitioner inquired from the revenue record and came to know about the existence of Impugned Mutation of gift. She negated the factum of any gift; alleging fraud, impersonation, without the knowledge and lawful consent of her deceased father recorded as such in the revenue record in connivance with the revenue officials of the area. She specifically refuted her information or acknowledgement qua Offer, Acceptance and Transfer of Possession of the Suit Property on the basis of any gift, consequently, she filed the Suit. The Defendant/Respondent contested the Suit by filing written statement, claiming that the Suit Property was gifted by Muhammad Ibrahim (Deceased) within his lifetime by fulfilling all necessary ingredients of a valid gift; claimed that the Plaintiff/Petitioner was aware of the factum of gift as the same was allegedly brought about with her consent and knowledge, in presence of the witnesses. Defendant claimed that the deceased father of the parties made an offer of gift of the Suit Property, which offer was accepted by him, possession was delivered and on the same day i.e. 18.04.1998, Rapt Roznamcha Waqiati No. 371 was recorded by the Patwari. It is further claimed in the written statement that the Impugned Mutation was presented in Jalsa-e-Aam conducted in the village, at the compound of village headman (Ali Akbar, PW-3) and same was accordingly sanctioned there on 29.04.1998. Defendant further…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant