Adv Sami Ullah

2025 CLC 1158

ہبہ کو ثابت کرنے کے لیے آٹھ لازمی شرائط
ہائی کورٹ

عدالتِ عالیہ کے سامنے ایک ایسا مقدمہ آیا جس میں ایک بھائی نے اپنے والد کی جائیداد سے بہن کو اس کے شرعی حق سے محروم کرنے کے لیے ہبہ (Gift) کا جعلی دعویٰ کیا۔ ابتدائی عدالت اور اپیلٹ کورٹ نے بھائی کے مؤقف کو تسلیم کرتے ہوئے فیصلہ اس کے حق میں دے دیا، تاہم ہائی کورٹ نے دونوں فیصلوں کو کالعدم قرار دیتے ہوئے بہن کے حق میں فیصلہ صادر کیا۔

عدالتِ عالیہ نے واضح کیا کہ جو فریق کسی معاملے سے فائدہ اٹھانا چاہتا ہو، اسی پر اس معاملے کو ثابت کرنے کی ذمہ داری عائد ہوتی ہے۔ چونکہ بھائی ہبہ کا بینیفشری تھا، اس لیے اس پر لازم تھا کہ وہ ہبہ کو قانونی اور قابلِ اعتماد شہادت سے ثابت کرے۔

عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ کسی بھی ہبہ کو قانونی طور پر ثابت کرنے کے لیے درج ذیل آٹھ بنیادی شرائط کا پورا ہونا ناگزیر ہے:

1. ایجاب (Offer): ہبہ کرنے والے کی جانب سے واضح اور غیر مبہم اعلان۔

2. قبول (Acceptance): ہبہ لینے والے کی جانب سے صریح قبولیت۔

3. قبضہ (Delivery of Possession): جائیداد کا حقیقی قبضہ ہبہ لینے والے کے سپرد ہونا۔

4. ہبہ کنندہ کی نیت (Donor’s Intention): ہبہ خلوصِ نیت پر مبنی ہو، فراڈ یا فریب پر نہیں۔

5. آزادیٔ ارادہ (Free Consent): ہبہ کسی دباؤ، جبر یا دھوکے کے بغیر کیا گیا ہو۔

6. گواہان کی موجودگی (Witnesses): ایجاب و قبول معتبر گواہوں کے روبرو ہوا ہو۔

7. محکمہ مال میں درست اندراج (Mutation in Revenue Record): لینڈ ریونیو ایکٹ کے مطابق انتقال کا اندراج کیا گیا ہو۔

8. شہادت میں مطابقت (Consistency in Evidence): گواہان کے بیانات اور سرکاری ریکارڈ میں کوئی تضاد موجود نہ ہو۔

عدالت کے مشاہدات کے مطابق بھائی کے پیش کردہ گواہوں کے بیانات آپس میں متضاد تھے۔ روزنامچہ واقعاتی (Roznamcha Waqiati) اور ایجاب و قبول کے وقت کے بارے میں بھی واضح تضاد پایا گیا۔ مزید یہ کہ بیٹے کی بطور گواہ شہادت ناقابلِ قبول قرار دی گئی کیونکہ وہ ایجاب و قبول کے وقت موجود ہی نہیں تھا۔

عدالت نے یہ بھی قرار دیا کہ لینڈ ریونیو ایکٹ، 1967 کی دفعہ 42 کے تحت انتقال کا عوامی اعلان (Public Attestation) ثابت نہیں کیا جا سکا، جو ہبہ کے قانونی ثبوت کے لیے ایک لازمی تقاضا ہے۔

2025 CLC 1158

Eight Essential Ingredients Required to Prove a Valid Gift
High Court

The High Court dealt with a case in which a brother, in order to deprive his sister of her lawful Islamic share in their father’s property, put forward a false and fabricated claim of gift (Hiba). The trial court as well as the appellate court had decided the matter in favour of the brother. However, the High Court set aside both judgments and decreed the suit in favour of the sister.

The Court observed that the burden of proof lies upon the party who seeks to derive benefit from a particular fact. Since the brother was the beneficiary of the alleged gift, it was incumbent upon him to establish the gift through credible and lawful evidence.

The High Court held that for a gift to be legally proved, the following eight essential ingredients must be strictly fulfilled:

1. Offer: A clear and unequivocal declaration by the donor.

2. Acceptance: An explicit acceptance by the donee.

3. Delivery of Possession: Actual transfer of possession of the property to the donee.

4. Donor’s Intention: The gift must be genuine and bona fide, free from fraud or deception.

5. Free Consent: The gift must be made voluntarily, without coercion, undue influence, or misrepresentation.

6. Witnesses: The offer and acceptance must take place in the presence of credible witnesses.

7. Mutation in Revenue Record: Proper mutation must be sanctioned in accordance with the Land Revenue Act.

8. Consistency in Evidence: There must be no contradiction between the statements of witnesses and the official revenue record.

While evaluating the evidence, the Court found that the statements of the witnesses produced by the brother were mutually contradictory. Clear inconsistencies were also noticed regarding the Roznamcha Waqiati and the timing of offer and acceptance. Furthermore, the testimony of the son was held to be unreliable and inadmissible, as he was not present at the time of the alleged offer and acceptance.

The Court further held that the mandatory requirement of public attestation of mutation under Section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, was not proved, rendering the alleged gift legally unsustainable.

Compromise in non compound able offence...
PLD 2016 pesh 26
2003 SCMR 663
PLD 2015 pesh 223
2011 MLD 1468
2009 YLR 1526
Rafiq Khan Lound Adv Rafiq Khan Advocate High Court LLM 0333 0333 6023706

بیوی،حق مہر ادا نہ کرنے کی صورت میں حقوق زوجیت ادا کرنے سے انکار کرنے کا حق رکھتی ہے.
(2020 YLR 1850).
دعویٰ زن آشوئی ڈگری نہ ہو گا، اگر خاوند ، بیوی کو اس کا حق مہر یا خرچہ نان و نفقہ ادا نہیں کرتا.
(2007 CLC 1517).
اگر بیوی شوہر کے ساتھ رہنے سے انکار کر دے تو وہ کسی قسم کے خرچہ نان و نفقہ کی حق دار نہ ہو گی.
(2016 YLR 371).
خاوند کا مسلم لاز آرڈیننس کی رو سے بیوی کی اجازت کے بغیر دوسری شادی کرنا ظلم کرنے کے زمرے میں آتا ہے.
(2013 CLC 1203). Rafiq Ahmad Khan Lound Advocate High Court LLM DGKhan cell phone 03336023706

سپریم کورٹ نے اپنے حالیہ فیصلہ میں قرار دیا ہے کہہ مرحوم ملازم کی بیٹیاں پینشن کی مستحق ہوتی ہیں۔ سب سے بڑی بیٹی پینشن کی اہل ہوتی ہے اگر بڑی بیٹی کی شادی ہو جائے یا وفات پا جاۓ تو پینشن دوسری بیٹی کو منتقل ہو جاتی ہے یوں تا حیات پینشن چلتی رہے گی۔

🔴 2025 SCMR 579
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Amin-ud-Din Khan and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ

Mst. ANITA ANAM---Petitioner

Versus

GENERAL PUBLIC and another---Respondents

Civil Petition No. 256-Q of 2020, decided on 15th August, 2024.

(Against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta dated 28.09.2020 passed in Civil Revision No. 199 of 2020).

📍(a) Balochistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1989---

----R. 4.10 (2) [as amended]---Succession Act ( # # of 1925), Ss. 372 & 373---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. II, R. 2---Succession certificate---Family monthly pension---Failure to include all claims---Successive proceedings---Scope---Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Applicability---Petitioner was unmarried daughter of deceased civil servant and had applied for family monthly pension---Succession Certificate was refused to her by the Courts below on the plea that she did not include claim of family monthly pensionin earlier succession application---Validity---Judge is empowered to issue more than one certificates, as provided by sections 372 (3) and 373 (3) and (4) of Succession Act, 1925---No limitation under Succession Act, 1925, has been placed upon right of parties in filing more than one application---Any decision made under Part-X upon any question of right between parties, does not bar trial of the same or related question in any subsequent proceedings under Succession Act, 1925 or in any suit or other proceedings between same parties---No person has been restricted under Succession Act, 1925 from filing application in respect of a portion of claim which he omitted while filing earlier application---Provisions of C.P.C. cannot be applied to matters falling under Succession Act, 1925 which is a special law and a specific procedure has been provided---Provisions of Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C. are not attracted in the matters under Succession Act, 1925---Where Succession Act, 1925 is silent on matters relating to procedure for trial of case, procedure provided by C.P.C. may be adopted to regulate proceedings---Earlier certificate issued to petitioner was in respect of amount left by her late father in his bank account, whereas, through second application, she was claiming her share in monthly family pension---Supreme Court set aside decision of High Court which was based upon unamended Balochistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1989, and was an illegality---Supreme Court remanded the matter to Trial Court to determine status, entitlement and share of petitioner in family monthly pension---Appeal was allowed.

📍(b) Succession Act ( # # of 1925)---

----Ss. 372 & 373---Successive application for grant of Succession certificate---Maintainability---There is no bar under Succession Act, 1925 in filing successive applications for grant of a certificate---No limitation can be imposed upon filing second application for grant of a certificate---Any person aggrieved from order granting earlier certificate, has a right to avail his remedy provided by law, subject to all just exceptions.

Manzoor Ahmed Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Gohar Yaqoob Yousafzai, Advocate-on-Record along with petitioner for Petitioner.

Muhammad Riaz Akhtar Tareen, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.M.A. No. 185-Q of 2024).

Muhammad Ali Rakhshani, Addl. A.G. Balochistan, Muhammad Ayub Tareen, Asstt. A.G. Balochistan, Noor Hussain Baloch, Addl. Secy S&GAD, Haji Muhammad Naeem, Addl. Secy, S&GAD (PAY), Rehmat Ullah Kakar, Dy. Secretary Finance and Abdul Wajid, Representative, A.G., Balochistan for Respondent No.1.

Muhammad Mehmood Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 15th August, 2024.

🔴 ORDER

JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J.---Facts in brief are that father of the petitioner, who was a District Health Officer, Health Department, Government of Balochistan, after retirement from his service, died in the year 2008. The petitioner filed an application for the grant of a succession certificate ('Certificate"), in the court of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate IX Quetta, alleging that her father had left behind him the following legal heirs:

1. Mst. Anwar Sultana (first wife)

2. Abu Asar Bilal (son)

3. Anjuman Ara (daughter)

4. Shazia (daughter)

5. Mst. Hameeda Akhtar (second wife, deceased)

6. Muhammad Abu Tahir (son)

7. Sabia Sahar (daughter)

8. Anita Anam (daughter, present petitioner).

2. The petitioner claimed that being an unmarried eldest daughter of the deceased, she is entitled for her share in the monthly family pension, as provided by the Balochistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1989 ('the Rules'). The respondents contested the application and it was dismissed up to the High Court of Balochistan, hence, this petition for leave to appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that pursuant to the amendment made in the Rules, vide notification dated 16 February 1999, the petitioner being the eldest unmarried daughter of the deceased, is entitled to the extent of her share in the monthly family pension, till her marriage. The learned counsel submitted that the High Court did not consider the amended Rules, instead, relied upon the previous unamended Rules, hence, reached at a wrong conclusion.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the contention and stated that the application of the petitioner was not maintainable in view of the fact that earlier in the year 2009, she had filed an application for the grant of a Certificate only in respect of an amount left by the deceased in his bank account, and had omitted to claim her right out of the monthly family pension. He contended that once a certificate was granted by the Trial Court to the petitioner, her second application to seek her omitted claim, was not maintainable, in view of bar contained in Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('C.P.C.'). Besides, the learned counsel added that the petitioner is otherwise not entitled for the family pension as she by concealment of facts, has already received an amount of Rs.11,00,000/-, therefore, the present application based on mala fide intention, has rightly been dismissed concurrently by the fora below.

5. Arguments heard and have perused the record. So far as the legal objection raised by the respondent with regard to maintainability of the application is concerned, it is important to mention here that the issuance of a certificate is governed by the Succession Act, 1925 ('the Act'), being a special law. Section 373 of the Act provides a simplified procedure for the Trial Court to be followed, while granting or refusing to grant a certificate. The procedure is summary in nature, only to determine a prima facie entitlement of an applicant, to receive the property of a deceased and to distribute the same amongst all those, who are legally entitled to receive their respective share. The object of summary trial provided by the Act, is to shorten the course of trial in order to ensure that justice is delivered swiftly, so as to facilitate an applicant, in order to get a certificate at the earliest, without compromising on the principles of natural justice and fair trial. Every trial under the Act shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible. The certificate is granted for a limited purpose and for a limited sphere, therefore, it is not a final and conclusive decision between the parties or those who are entitled to get their share from the left-over property of a deceased. The court is bound to decide the application by adopting a procedure provided by section 323 of the Act while granting a certificate to an applicant, provided he makes out a prima facie title to the subject matter of the certificate. While doing so, the Judge should try to confine himself to the issue of "right to the certificate". However, where the Court considers that a question of title is involved which cannot be disposed summarily, on the basis of available material, it may refuse to grant a certificate and allow the parties to establish their right by filing a regular suit before a competent court of law.

6. The Legislature appears to have left the matter to the discretion of the Courts with an unfettered power under the Act to do complete justice in a matter. A Judge is empowered to issue more than one certificates, as provided by sub-section (3) of section 372 and sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 373 of the Act. The Act place no limitation upon the right of the parties in filing more than one application, therefore, any decision made under Part-X upon any question of right between the parties, shall not bar the trial of the same or related question in any subsequent proceedings under this Act or in any suit or other proceedings between the same parties. The Act does not restrict a person from filing application in respect of a portion of claim which he omits while filing earlier application. What is to be underlined is that the provisions of C.P.C. cannot be applied to the matters falling under the Act, in view of the fact that being a special law, a specific procedure is provided, therefore, the provisions of Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C. do not attract in the matters under the Act. However, where the Act is silent on matters relating to procedure for the trial of the case, the procedure provided by the C.P.C. may be adopted to regulate the proceedings. Admittedly, the earlier certificate issued to the petitioner was in respect of the amount left by her late father in his bank account, whereas, through the second application, she is claiming her share in the monthly family pension. As discussed herein that there is no bar under the Act in filing successive applications for the grant of a certificate, no limitation can be imposed upon filing second application for the grant of a certificate. However, any person aggrieved from the order granting an earlier certificate, has a right to avail his remedy provided by law, subject to all just exceptions. The findings of the High Court, by non-suiting the petitioner on the ground that her second application was barred by Order II, Rule 2 of the C.P.C., are contrary to the provisions of the Act, therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable.

Merits:

7. The claim of the petitioner is based upon rule 4.10(2) of the Rules, as amended, which is reproduced herein below:

"4.10(2)

(i) ---

(ii) Substituted with "failing (i) to (iii) the eldest surviving unmarried daughter till her marriage, and if the eldest daughter marries or dies the next eldest daughter till her marriage will draw the family pension."

After amendment in the Rules in the year 1999, an eldest unmarried daughter of a deceased Govt. Officer is made entitled to draw her share in a monthly family pension, till her marriage. The Rules further provide that, in case, the eldest daughter marries or dies, the next eldest unmarried daughter of the deceased will become entitled to draw her share out of the family pension, till her marriage. The petitioner is claiming to be an eldest unmarried daughter of late Dr. Muhammad Abu Amar. Though the respondent did not rebut her such status either before the fora below or even before this Court, but there is no finding to such extent. The High Court's decision is based upon the unamended Rules. It seems that the amended Rules have escaped the notice of the High Court, hence, it reached to a wrong conclusion, which is an illegality. Under such circumstances, the impugned judgments are not sustainable.

Thus, in view of the above, the petition is converted into an appeal and is allowed. The judgments dated 28.05.2019, 15.07.2020 and 28.09.2020 of the Trial Court, the Appellate Court and that of the High Court, respectively are set aside. In order to determine the status, entitlement and share of the petitioner in the family monthly pension, the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court to conduct summary proceedings, as provided by section 373 of the Act, keeping in view the rights of the remaining surviving legal heirs. The Trial Court should proceed with the matter expeditiously and to decide the same preferably within a period of sixty days, after service of notices upon the parties.

MH/A-2/SC Case remanded.