Doctrine of Hibba Gift

hibba or giftLATEST JUDGMENTS OF SUPREME COURT: GIFT OR HIBBA
2018 PLD 698 SUPREME-COURT
Essential requirement—Proof—Three ingredients of a valid Gift included declaration/offer by the donor; acceptance of Gift by the donee; and, delivery of possession under the Gift —Declaration of Gift and delivery of possession had to be established through independent evidence.

2018 PLD 698 SUPREME-COURT
Art. 79, proviso—Gift deed—Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested—Proviso to the Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—Scope—Said proviso relaxed the requirement of calling the two attesting witnesses to prove the execution of the document, if the document was duly registered in accordance with the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and its execution was not specifically denied—Party was relieved of the duty of calling the two witnesses but not from the duty of proving the execution of the registered document—Effect of the proviso to Art.79 was that the due execution and attestation of the Gift deed would have to be proved, although it may be proved by calling a person other than an attesting witness—Such relaxation was pillared on an important assumption that the execution of the document was not denied—Denail of the execution of the document was not limited to the executant alone but was open to any party to the suit that was affected by the said document.

2018 CLC 1535
Gift —Ingredients—Gift was transfer of property or right by one person to another—Essentials of Gift were declaration by the donor, acceptance of Gift by the donee and delivery of possession of subject matter of Gift to donee.

2018 SCMR 139 SUPREME-COURT
possession —Mere transfer of possession to donee was not sufficient to constitute a valid Gift under the law.

2016 SCMR 910 SUPREME-COURT
Mutation—Proof—Purported Gift deed not in possession of purported donee—Purported donor and donee not appearing before revenue official for recording alleged Gift in register of mutation—Circumstances under which alleged Gift deed was lost and subsequently recovered not explained—Alleged arrangement/understanding between purported donee and other legal heirs whereby subject land was transferred to all legal heirs as an interim measure till the alleged Gift deed was found was not supported either by documentary evidence or revenue record—Legal heirs were not obliged under law to accede to request of purported donee to transfer the entire subject land to him, nor their denial to oblige could be deemed to be a denial/infringement of any legal or contractual right of the purported donee—Plaint was rightly rejected in such circumstances.
Gift was a personal action which could be performed by the owner only---attorney had no right to Gift property to any person on his own behalf ---Transfer of property in question in favour of his father by the attorney through Gift on his own behalf was not permissible under the law..... 2016 PLD 287 LHC