Legitimacy of Oral Gift and Revisional Jurisdiction

In Civil Appeal No. 648 of 2022, Aamir Afzal and another appellant challenged the Lahore High Court's decision to overturn the concurrent findings of two lower courts. The dispute revolved around the ownership of a residential property allegedly gifted by Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Afzal to his children from his second marriage. The respondents, representing the first wife's side, contested the validity of the oral gift and sought partition of the property.

Key Issues:

Validity of the Oral Gift: The core issue was whether the oral gift, documented in a Memorandum dated 04.02.1974, was valid and whether it was fraudulently created to deprive the respondents of their hereditary rights.

Revisional Jurisdiction: Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to overturn the findings of the trial and appellate courts.

Burden of Proof: Determining whether the burden of proving the alleged fraud in the Memorandum was appropriately handled.

Case Law: Fareed and others v. Muhammad Tufail and another (2018 SCMR 139), Mst. Sahib Noor v. Haji Ahmed (1988 SCMR 1703), Ghulam Shabbir v. Mst. Nur Begum and others (PLD 1977 SC 75), and Kanwal Nain and others v. Fateh Khan and others (PLD 1983 SC 53).

Court’s Analysis:

Oral Gift and Memorandum: The appellants produced the original Memorandum and certified copies, demonstrating that the property was orally gifted to them in 1962. The property transfer was reflected in the records of the Model Town Cooperative Housing Society. The respondents alleged that the Memorandum was fabricated but failed to provide specific details or evidence to substantiate the fraud claim.

High Court’s Misstep in Revisional Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court, under Section 115 CPC, should ensure that the trial court’s order was within jurisdiction and free from legal or procedural errors. The High Court overstepped by reassessing evidence and setting aside the concurrent findings without sufficient grounds.

Burden of Proof: The respondents did not discharge the initial burden of proving fraud. The allegations were vague and lacked the required specificity as per Rule 4 of Order VI CPC. The trial court's findings, based on a preponderance of evidence, were therefore valid. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court’s role in revisional jurisdiction is limited, particularly concerning concurrent findings of fact by lower courts. It reiterated that the High Court should not interfere unless there are significant procedural errors or misapplication of the law.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstating the trial and appellate courts' decisions, thereby upholding the validity of the oral gift and the associated Memorandum. The High Court's judgment dated 06.05.2022 was set aside, and the CMA was disposed of accordingly.

Contact Us:

For expert legal assistance in property disputes, inheritance issues, and appellate jurisdiction matters, contact AUJ LAWYERS LLP. Our experienced team in Lahore offers comprehensive legal services to safeguard your rights and interests. For further legal assistance or queries regarding this case, please contact AUJ LAWYERS LLP, Lahore.

We are here to help

Talk to our lawyers today. We tailor our services around your legal needs so that we can reach the desired outcome together.