Summary: Background:The case involves a dispute over inheritance rights between the widow and daughter of Mansab Khan, and the petitioners who allegedly deprived them of their rightful inheritance through a fictitious gift mutation.The respondents filed a suit challenging the validity of the alleged gift, which was initially decreed in their favor by the Trial Court but later overturned by the Appellate Court, leading to further legal proceedings.---Issues:Whether the purported donees (petitioners) successfully established the validity of the gift.Whether the actions of the petitioners in depriving the widow and daughter of their inheritance rights violated Islamic law, public policy, and constitutional provisions.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the purported donees failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the validity of the gift.Justice Qazi Faez Isa criticized the petitioners for their predatory actions in depriving the widow and daughter of their rightful inheritance, highlighting the exploitation of vulnerable individuals and the violation of Islamic principles and constitutional protections.The petition was dismissed, and costs were imposed on the petitioners.The executing court was instructed to ensure prompt compliance with the judgments in favor of the respondents, and copies of the order were to be sent to relevant parties for information and compliance.---Citations/Precedents:Islam-ud-din v Noor Jahan (2016 SCMR 986)Khalida Azhar v Viqar Rustan Bakhshi (2018 SCMR 30)Abid Baig v Zahid Sabir (2020 SCMR 601)Ghulam Ali v Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1)

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act, 1877 ----S. 22---Suit for specific performance of contract---Execution and proof of agreement---Readiness and willingness of vendee---Discretion of Court---Plaintiff (appellant) sought declaration with permanent injunction, alleging that the agreement to sell dated 03.02.2014 was fraudulent, whereas defendants (respondents) filed a suit for specific performance---Trial Court dismissed plaintiff's suit and decreed respondents' suit for specific performance---Appellant contended that the agreement and related payment receipts (Exh.D2, Exh.D3, Exh.D4) were forged and not proved in accordance with Art. 17 read with Art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---Respondents contended that the agreement stood proved and that they had been willing and ready to pay the balance consideration amount---Trial Court directed forensic verification of appellant's signatures, but Punjab Forensic Science Agency could not conclusively determine genuineness due to insufficient specimen signatures---Court observed that appellant's conduct, including failure to facilitate signature verification, led to an adverse inference against him---Execution of agreement was established, and substantial performance was found through payment of earnest money and transfer of US$ 42,000/- to appellant's bank account---Held, specific performance is an equitable relief, and Court must determine which party is avoiding contractual obligations---Where agreement stands proved and substantial performance is shown, discretion may be exercised in favor of enforcement---Respondents directed to deposit Rs. 45,500,000/- as balance consideration within two months. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Arts. 17 & 79---Proof of documents---Forensic verification---Failure to provide sufficient specimen signatures---Adverse inference against appellant---Where appellant failed to cooperate in verification of questioned signatures on payment receipts and did not contest credited bank transactions, presumption of authenticity of agreement arose in favor of respondents. (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) ----O. XLI, R. 25---Additional issue framed at appellate stage---Reference to Trial Court for factual determination---Appellate Court exercised power under O.XLI, R.25, CPC, directing Trial Court to refer disputed receipts for forensic examination---Trial Court's report inconclusive due to lack of specimen signatures---Held, appellant's conduct in avoiding verification justified drawing of an adverse inference against him. (d) Property Law---Joint ownership---Partition---Decree for specific performance operating on co-owned property---Appellant's step-brother (Respondent No.6) contended that suit property was jointly owned and required partition before transfer---Held, decree shall operate only to the extent of appellant’s share, with proper partition proceedings to be undertaken by the Executing Court to determine the extent of divisible property before effecting transfer. (e) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ----S. 53-A---Doctrine of part performance---Equitable title---Possession under an agreement to sell---Limitation---Where a transferee in possession under an agreement to sell faces threats to his possession from the transferor or a third party, he may file a suit to defend his equitable right to possession under S. 53-A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Held, right to retain possession is an existing right that does not lapse merely due to limitation---A transferee in possession may seek permanent injunction to protect his possession, and the Court may also direct execution of the sale deed to finalize the transaction and avoid future litigation---Reliance placed on Muhammad Nawaz Magsi v. Illahi Bux (2010 CLC 407), Ahmed Mujtaba Khan v. Iqbal Shah (1990 CLC 1381), and Inayat Ullah v. Shah Muhammad (PLD 1961 Lah. 372). (f) Inheritance Law---Fraudulent mutation---Parda nasheen women---Burden of proof on beneficiary---Legal heirs' rights---Petitioner manipulated inheritance mutation to include a fictitious name and executed an oral sale mutation in his own favor---Respondent, a parda nasheen and illiterate woman, was deprived of her lawful share---Held, the burden of proving that the transaction was done with free consent, understanding, and independent legal advice rested on the beneficiary of the transaction---Failure to establish these elements resulted in annulment of the fraudulent mutations---Reliance placed on Pakistan Refinery Ltd. v. Barrett Hodgson Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (2019 SCMR 1726) and Sikandar Hayat v. Sughran Bibi (2020 SCMR 214) distinguished---Petition dismissed. Disposition: Appeals disposed of in modified terms---Respondents directed to deposit balance consideration within two months; decree to operate only on appellant's share---Relief of permanent injunction granted to transferee in possession under S. 53-A, Transfer of Property Act, directing completion of transaction to prevent future litigation.

Summary: The case involved Writ Petition filed by Mst. Shahnaz Begum and others against the Additional District Judge, challenging the dismissal of their appeal under section 388(2) of the Succession Act, 1925. The dispute arose over the distribution of service benefits of Rana Muhammad Akram, a deceased ASI in the Punjab Police. Mst. Shahnaz Begum and her minor children filed for a Succession Certificate, while Respondents No. 4 & 5 claimed a share as the deceased's second widow and son, respectively. The petitioner argued that the lower courts exceeded their jurisdiction by deciding intricate factual matters summarily. They contested the finding that Respondents No. 4 & 5 were legal heirs, claiming it was based on conjectures. However, the respondents argued in favor of the impugned order. The court delved into the provisions of the Succession Act, emphasizing that the purpose of a Succession Certificate is to facilitate debt collection and protect debtors dealing with the deceased's representatives. It highlighted that such certificates are granted only for debts and securities, not for other property, and do not establish the grantee's title as an heir. The court analyzed several legal precedents to underscore the fundamental principles governing the issuance of Succession Certificates under the Succession Act, 1925. These precedents helped establish the parameters within which the court adjudicated the matter. Notable cases mentioned includes, Mst. Jameela Akhtar v. Public-at-large (2002 SCMR 1544): This case highlighted the necessity of obtaining a civil court declaration regarding the status of a claimant, particularly in disputes concerning marriage or relationship status. Aziz Ahmad v. Hakimzadi and 7 others (2013 CLC 406): The court emphasized the requirement for claimants to seek declarations from the civil court regarding their legal status when disputes arise during Succession Certificate proceedings. Liaqat Zaman Khan and others v. Mst. Tazeem Akhtar and others (2017 YLR 150): This case illustrated situations where the court upheld the issuance of a Succession Certificate pending a civil suit for declaration, emphasizing the need for due process and legal clarity. Sofia Ashfaq v. Haseeb Ashfaq Bhatti and others (PLD 2019 Islamabad 238): The judgment discussed the circumstances under which a Succession Certificate could be granted, subject to the outcome of a civil suit, especially when disputes exist regarding the validity of marriage or inheritance rights. These precedents served as guiding principles for the court in determining the validity of the claims presented before it and in ensuring the proper application of the law in the case at hand. Ultimately, the court directed the issuance of a Succession Certificate to Respondents No. 4 & 5, subject to them furnishing a bond and filing a civil suit to establish their status. It allowed the petitioner to seek revocation if the respondents failed to establish their claim in the civil suit.

Summary: Background:Haji Wajdad, the appellant, challenged the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan in Civil Revision No. 73 of 2008. The appellant claimed inheritance and possession of a property but was aggrieved by a mutation entered in favor of the Provincial Government. The trial court and the appellate court initially ruled in favor of the appellant, but the High Court set aside their judgments, leading to this appeal.Issues:Whether the High Court, in exercising revisional jurisdiction, could set aside the decisions of the lower courts.Whether the appeal filed by the respondents was time-barred.Whether the issues framed by the trial court adequately addressed the title and possession of the disputed property.Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that while revisional courts typically do not disturb concurrent findings of fact, exceptions exist, such as gross misreading or non-reading of evidence. In this case, the revisional court rightly identified such errors, including the failure to consider evidence of possession by the appellant's father and himself. The court also found the appellant's suit to be time-barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and emphasized the need for clear evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness attached to mutations in revenue records. Additionally, the court rejected the argument that the appeal by the respondents was time-barred, as the High Court could exercise suo motu jurisdiction to correct errors even in late petitions. Lastly, the court dismissed the appellant's contention that the trial court's issues were vague, noting that they directly addressed the title and possession of the disputed property.Citations/Precedents:Nazim-ud-Din and others v. Sheikh Zia-ul-Qamar and others (2016 SCMR 24)Mandi Hassan alias Mehdi Hussain and another v. Muhammad Arif (PLD 2015 SC 137)Nawab Khan and others v. Said Karim Khan and others (1997 SCMR 1840)Hafeez Ahmad v. Civil Judge, Lahore (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 400)Khan Muhammad through L.Rs and others v. Mst. Khatoon Bibi and others (2017 SCMR 1476)Gen. (R.) Parvez Musharraf v. Nadeem Ahmed (Advocate) and another (PLD 2014 SC 585)

Summary: (a) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 ----S. 30-A; West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962----Inheritance rights; Limited estate; Proprietary rights. Under S. 30-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, the estate held by a female is a limited estate governed by customary law. Upon the promulgation of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, the limited estate terminates, and inheritance rights are governed by Muslim Law. The widow’s entitlement is restricted to her share under Islamic inheritance principles, and any claim exceeding that is untenable. Reliance placed on Mst. Began v. Mst. Bai (1983 SCMR 80). (b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----O. XIV, R. 1; Framing of issues----Non-framing of issues; Effect on judgment. Non-framing of specific issues does not automatically vitiate a judgment if parties had the opportunity to present their evidence on the relevant matters. Courts are not obligated to remand a case due to the absence of specific issues unless prejudice is demonstrated. A party claiming such prejudice must raise the objection at the earliest opportunity and consistently pursue it in appellate forums. Reliance placed on Mushtaq Ahmad alias Mushtaq Hussain v. Mst. Hakim Bibi (PLD 1969 SC 338). (c) Evidence Law ----Burden of proof; Relationship with propositus----Requirement of strong evidence. Third-party appellants contesting the relationship of plaintiffs with the propositus (original tenant) must present convincing and direct evidence to refute the claim. Failure to do so strengthens the presumption of legitimacy of the plaintiffs' relationship as collaterals. Appellants failed to meet this burden. (d) Customary Law; Transition to Islamic Law ----Termination of limited estate under custom----Application of Muslim Personal Law. Customary inheritance rights under limited estate provisions are overridden by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, which grants inheritance rights based on Islamic principles. Past cases decided before the incorporation of S. 30-A in 1944 were held inapplicable to the present matter. -----Cited Cases: Mst. Began v. Mst. Bai (1983 SCMR 80) Mushtaq Ahmad alias Mushtaq Hussain v. Mst. Hakim Bibi (PLD 1969 SC 338) Ilam Din v. Muhammad Din (PLD 1964 SC 842)

Summary: Background:Mirza Sultan Baig died in 1975, leaving behind his widow and children. Two of his daughters, Abida Azam and Zahida Sabir, filed a suit in 1980 seeking administration of his estate. The suit was decreed in 1992 for two properties. Subsequent appeals and revisions followed, with Mirza Abid Baig presenting purported compromise documents claiming his sister Zahida Sabir relinquished her inheritance.---Issues:Authenticity and validity of the purported compromise documents.Compliance with legal requirements for withdrawal of claims.Violation of inheritance rights under Islamic law and legal principles.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence, found discrepancies and inconsistencies in the purported compromise documents presented by Mirza Abid Baig. The documents lacked credibility and validity, and it was concluded that Zahida Sabir's rights were not lawfully relinquished. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the rights of vulnerable family members, especially women, in matters of inheritance. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and costs were ordered to be paid to the respondents. The Executing Court was urged to promptly conclude the matter.---Citations/Precedents:Umar Bakhsh v. Azim Khan, 1993 SCMR 374Sadar Din v. Khatoon, 2004 SCMR 1102Ghulam Ali v. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (Mst.), PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1

Summary: Background:The Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal arises from a judgment dated 22.12.2014 by the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench, dismissing a Civil Revision filed by the Petitioners. The dispute involves mutations pertaining to a property claimed by the Plaintiffs/Petitioners, challenging mutations dating back to 1922 and 1927.---Issues:Whether the Plaintiffs/Petitioners proved the lineage necessary for inheritance rights.Whether the suit was barred by limitation.Whether the evidence presented by the Petitioners was sufficient to warrant leave to appeal.---Holding/Reasoning:The courts below found that the Plaintiffs/Petitioners failed to prove the lineage necessary for inheritance rights. Despite the Petitioners' reference to a birth register entry, the evidence presented did not meet the requirements under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The courts upheld the concurrent findings rejecting the claim of lineage.In cases of inheritance, the burden of proving ouster from the property rests on the party claiming the bar of limitation. As the Petitioners failed to prove inheritance rights, the bar of limitation applied, rendering the suit filed in 1993 barred by time.The learned counsel for the Petitioners failed to establish a case for grant of leave to appeal. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and leave was refused.---Outcome:The Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal was dismissed, and leave was refused by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Summary: Background:Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Hasan owned agricultural land. Upon his death, his legal heirs took possession of the property and got inheritance mutation recorded in the revenue record. However, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Mumtaz Bibi and Adnan Hassan) were excluded from the mutation. They filed appeals and suits, challenging their exclusion as legal heirs. Despite several litigations, the mutation remained unchanged. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 approached the High Court through a writ petition, seeking correction of the mutation to include their names as legal heirs. The High Court accepted the petition, setting aside the orders of the revenue hierarchy and directing the incorporation of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as legal heirs.---Issues:Whether the High Court erred in deciding the matter without the presence of all parties.Whether the matter had attained finality through previous judgments and decrees, thereby precluding further litigation.Whether the writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution was maintainable in light of the principle of Res Judicata.Whether the High Court's decision was based on assumptions and presumptions without a declaratory decree.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court considered the arguments presented by the petitioners regarding the absence of all parties during the High Court proceedings and the finality of previous judgments and decrees. The issue revolved around the status of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as legal heirs. Despite prior litigation, the mutation remained unchanged, prompting Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to seek relief through a writ petition. The court concluded that the matter was not conclusively decided and was still subject to determination. The High Court's decision to correct the mutation was upheld based on the necessity of rectifying the record to reflect the true legal heirs.---Citations/Precedents:Article 199 of the Constitution of PakistanPrinciple of Res Judicata

Summary: Background:Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Hasan owned agricultural land upon his death.Petitioners, heirs of Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Hasan, were recorded in the inheritance mutation.Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mumtaz Bibi and Adnan Hasan, sought inclusion as legal heirs.Previous litigation resulted in dismissals by trial, appellate courts, and High Court.---Issues:Whether the High Court's intervention via writ petition was warranted.Whether the doctrine of res judicata applies given the previous dismissals by lower courts.Whether the mutation record should be rectified to include Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as legal heirs.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court found that the issue centered around determining the legal heirs of Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Hasan.Despite previous dismissals, the High Court intervened through a writ petition and directed the rectification of the mutation record.The doctrine of res judicata applies, preventing re-litigation of the issue.The Supreme Court allowed the petition, setting aside the High Court's order, and maintaining the original mutation record.---Citations/Precedents:Allah Ditta through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866)

Summary: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)-------Ss. 372, 383 & 384---Appeal---Wrong forum---Appeal was filed directly before HighCourt against orders passed by Trial Court---Validity---Order passed under S. 372 ofSuccession Act, 1925 by an inferior court, appeal laid before District Judge---When an orderwas passed under S. 372 of Succession Act, 1925 by a District Judge, appeal laid before HighCourt--- Appeals were wrongly filed before High Court---Appeal against judgment and orderpassed by Trial Court under provisions of Succession Act, 1925 lay before District Judge---High Court directed appeals filed by appellant to be returned to appellant to file before theDistrict Judge---Order accordingly.