BR100 Decreased By (-0%)
BR30 Decreased By (-0.4%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.14%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.05%)
AGHA 6.62 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.15%)
BECO 4.32 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (1.89%)
BML 60.30 Decreased By ▼ -1.15 (-1.87%)
BOP 28.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.03%)
CNERGY 12.87 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.55%)
CSIL 5.43 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-2.34%)
FCCL 51.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.20 (-0.38%)
FFL 14.09 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.5%)
FNEL 1.12 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KEL 6.08 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (2.88%)
KOSM 5.39 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.92%)
LOTCHEM 25.49 Decreased By ▼ -0.33 (-1.28%)
MLCF 90.08 Decreased By ▼ -0.37 (-0.41%)
NBP 158.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.97 (-0.61%)
NCPL 48.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.18 (-0.37%)
NPL 53.20 Increased By ▲ 0.77 (1.47%)
OGDC 298.90 Decreased By ▼ -3.35 (-1.11%)
PACE 9.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.91%)
PAEL 33.80 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.21%)
PIBTL 13.75 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.29%)
PPL 218.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.55 (-0.25%)
PRL 106.97 Increased By ▲ 3.21 (3.09%)
PTC 53.81 Decreased By ▼ -1.25 (-2.27%)
SSGC 22.92 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.43%)
TBL 9.53 Decreased By ▼ -0.24 (-2.46%)
TELE 7.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-1.8%)
TPL 20.46 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-1.02%)
TPLP 11.82 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.42%)
TREET 23.47 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-0.55%)
TRG 56.46 Increased By ▲ 0.99 (1.78%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has held that a donor can revoke a gift at any time before delivery of possession, while after delivery of possession the gift can only be revoked through a decree of a competent court.

The court passed this order while dismissing a petition filed by Ghazanfar Ali, who had challenged the decision of a trial court.

According to the case record, respondent Noor Fatima instituted a suit for declaration, asserting that she was the owner of the land in question and that the petitioners, in connivance with revenue officials, had managed to get the disputed mutations sanctioned in their favour without fulfilling legal formalities. The petitioners contested the suit but, despite being granted sufficient opportunities, failed to produce evidence and remained absent from proceedings, as a result of which they were proceeded against ex parte. The court observed that beneficiaries of transactions involving gift or transfer of immovable property carry a heavy burden to establish the validity of such transactions.

The court emphasised that concrete and convincing evidence must be produced to establish the essential ingredients of a valid gift, namely offer, acceptance and delivery of possession. It noted that a plain reading of the written statement filed by the petitioners revealed that no specific date, time or place of the alleged transaction had been mentioned, nor were the names of witnesses disclosed, terming such omission in pleadings fatal to the case.

The court further observed that even if the petitioners’ stance was accepted that the mutation had been sanctioned with the free will of the plaintiff, the legal obligation still rested upon the beneficiaries to prove the validity of the alleged gift.

After examining the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the court found no illegality or irregularity warranting interference and consequently dismissed the revision petition in limine for having no merit.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.