AIRLINK 155.38 Increased By ▲ 3.26 (2.14%)
BOP 9.69 Increased By ▲ 0.57 (6.25%)
CNERGY 7.11 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.28%)
CPHL 84.07 Increased By ▲ 1.78 (2.16%)
FCCL 43.44 Increased By ▲ 0.63 (1.47%)
FFL 14.79 Increased By ▲ 0.58 (4.08%)
FLYNG 30.31 Increased By ▲ 1.72 (6.02%)
HUBC 136.24 Increased By ▲ 4.30 (3.26%)
HUMNL 12.51 Increased By ▲ 0.28 (2.29%)
KEL 4.02 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.5%)
KOSM 5.02 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (2.24%)
MLCF 69.44 Increased By ▲ 2.39 (3.56%)
OGDC 203.25 Increased By ▲ 2.87 (1.43%)
PACE 5.06 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.4%)
PAEL 42.50 Increased By ▲ 1.00 (2.41%)
PIAHCLA 16.57 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (2.16%)
PIBTL 8.79 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (4.39%)
POWER 13.93 Increased By ▲ 0.88 (6.74%)
PPL 150.83 Increased By ▲ 2.23 (1.5%)
PRL 28.91 Increased By ▲ 1.20 (4.33%)
PTC 20.73 Increased By ▲ 1.27 (6.53%)
SEARL 84.04 Increased By ▲ 2.07 (2.53%)
SSGC 40.25 Increased By ▲ 2.98 (8%)
SYM 14.83 Increased By ▲ 0.45 (3.13%)
TELE 6.98 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (2.35%)
TPLP 8.27 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (1.6%)
TRG 64.05 Increased By ▲ 0.92 (1.46%)
WAVESAPP 8.57 Increased By ▲ 0.53 (6.59%)
WTL 1.27 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (1.6%)
YOUW 3.42 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (2.09%)
AIRLINK 155.38 Increased By ▲ 3.26 (2.14%)
BOP 9.69 Increased By ▲ 0.57 (6.25%)
CNERGY 7.11 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.28%)
CPHL 84.07 Increased By ▲ 1.78 (2.16%)
FCCL 43.44 Increased By ▲ 0.63 (1.47%)
FFL 14.79 Increased By ▲ 0.58 (4.08%)
FLYNG 30.31 Increased By ▲ 1.72 (6.02%)
HUBC 136.24 Increased By ▲ 4.30 (3.26%)
HUMNL 12.51 Increased By ▲ 0.28 (2.29%)
KEL 4.02 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.5%)
KOSM 5.02 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (2.24%)
MLCF 69.44 Increased By ▲ 2.39 (3.56%)
OGDC 203.25 Increased By ▲ 2.87 (1.43%)
PACE 5.06 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.4%)
PAEL 42.50 Increased By ▲ 1.00 (2.41%)
PIAHCLA 16.57 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (2.16%)
PIBTL 8.79 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (4.39%)
POWER 13.93 Increased By ▲ 0.88 (6.74%)
PPL 150.83 Increased By ▲ 2.23 (1.5%)
PRL 28.91 Increased By ▲ 1.20 (4.33%)
PTC 20.73 Increased By ▲ 1.27 (6.53%)
SEARL 84.04 Increased By ▲ 2.07 (2.53%)
SSGC 40.25 Increased By ▲ 2.98 (8%)
SYM 14.83 Increased By ▲ 0.45 (3.13%)
TELE 6.98 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (2.35%)
TPLP 8.27 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (1.6%)
TRG 64.05 Increased By ▲ 0.92 (1.46%)
WAVESAPP 8.57 Increased By ▲ 0.53 (6.59%)
WTL 1.27 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (1.6%)
YOUW 3.42 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (2.09%)
BR100 12,160 Increased By 383.7 (3.26%)
BR30 35,356 Increased By 946.7 (2.75%)
KSE100 114,114 Increased By 2787.4 (2.5%)
KSE30 34,917 Increased By 924.3 (2.72%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) held that mere efflux of time does not extinguish the right of inheritance; hence, the question of limitation in case of inheritance and fraud is not attracted and becomes insignificant.

The court passed this order in a petition of Mst Sadiqan Begum who approached the court against the dismissal of her suit seeking cancellation of gift mutation in favour of her brother.

The court said the possession of immovable property by one of the siblings to the exclusion of others will be treated as constructive possession on behalf of all others, unless proved otherwise.

The court said 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.

The court said a mutation cannot by itself be considered a document of title; hence, the oral transaction of transfer of immovable property, be it sale, gift, surrender or will; etc., has to be proved separate from its incorporation in revenue record by way of sanctioning of the mutation.

The court said, 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 & date, the venue, the persons in whose presence the alleged transaction was brought about.

The court said, 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.

The court commenting on the petitioner’s case said that factor of having possession of the suit property by the only brother of the petitioner lady cannot solely confirm the transaction of the impugned gift. The court said perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent leads to only one inescapable conclusion that the defendant had failed to plead the necessary ingredients of oral transaction of gift.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Comments

200 characters