Summary: Facts:Ghulam Abbas and others (appellants) filed a suit against the legal heirs of Mohammad Shafi (respondents) regarding a property dispute originating from an inheritance issue. The appellants' suit was initially dismissed by the trial court, and this dismissal was upheld by the Lahore High Court. The appellants claimed there was an oral compromise with the respondents' predecessors that wasn't honored, leading to the lawsuit.----Issues:Whether the appellants' suit was barred under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908.Whether the appellants had the right to lead evidence for proving the terms of the alleged oral compromise.----Judgment:Justice Umar Ata Bandial delivered the judgment, dismissing the appellants' appeal based on several key points:The appellants' predecessor unconditionally withdrew an earlier suit for the same relief, which precludes the appellants from instituting a fresh suit on the same subject matter.The alleged oral compromise was not recorded or acknowledged in any legal proceeding, and the mutation in dispute remained unchallenged for a considerable time, suggesting acquiescence to its terms.The appellants' suit, filed long after the appellants' predecessor had accepted the status quo, was deemed not maintainable due to the lack of locus standi, arising from estoppel and abandonment of the claim.---Decision:The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower courts that the suit was barred by law and dismissing the appeal without costs.---Rationale:The Court emphasized the legal principles regarding the withdrawal of suits and the impact of such actions on the right to file subsequent suits for the same relief. It also highlighted the significance of challenging mutations in a timely manner and how failure to do so can affect heirs' rights to contest such mutations later. The Court's decision underscored the importance of clear, actionable claims in property disputes and the consequences of acquiescence to existing legal mutations.

Summary: Facts:The appellants, Mst. Noor Bibi and Zulfiqar Ali, contested a judgment from the Lahore High Court which decreed a suit for declaration and change of mutation in favor of the respondents, Ghulam Qamar and Mst. Razia Bibi, regarding agricultural land in Sialkot. The dispute centered around the inheritance shares according to Shia law, where the widow (Mst. Noor Bibi) was deemed not entitled to a share in her deceased husband's immovable property.---Procedural History:Trial Court dismissed the suit, recognizing the widow's entitlement under Shia law of inheritance.The decision was upheld by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot.Lahore High Court allowed the civil revision, setting aside lower courts' findings and decreeing the suit in favor of the respondents, relying on the interpretation of a 'childless widow' under Shia law from a prior Supreme Court ruling.----Issue:Whether the Lahore High Court erred in its application of Shia law of inheritance, particularly regarding the entitlement of a widow with children to her deceased husband's estate.----Judgment:The Supreme Court set aside the Lahore High Court's judgment, holding that it misapplied the legal principle regarding the entitlement of a widow under Shia law of inheritance. The Court clarified that the precedent cited by the Lahore High Court pertained to a 'childless widow,' which does not apply to Mst. Noor Bibi, who had children with the deceased. Therefore, the widow is entitled to her share of the estate under Shia law.----Reasoning:The Supreme Court analyzed the precedent and the Shia law of inheritance, noting that a widow with children is entitled to a share in both movable and immovable property of her deceased husband. The Court found that the Lahore High Court's judgment was based on an incorrect application of the law, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.---Holding:The Supreme Court reversed the Lahore High Court's decision, reinstating the entitlement of Mst. Noor Bibi, the widow, to her share of the estate under Shia law of inheritance.

Summary: ---Facts:The appeals challenged the Peshawar High Court's judgment, which favored Mst. Noor Jahan (the respondent) in a dispute over property inheritance. Haji Sahraney Khan (the deceased) allegedly gifted certain properties to his three sons (the appella

Summary: Issues: 1)The jurisdiction of Pakistani courts over foreign property under Sections 16 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).2)The application of the principles of private international law, specifically the concepts of lex situs (law of the place where the property is located) and lex domicilii (law of the domicile).----Judgment: The Supreme Court held that Pakistani courts do not have jurisdiction over property situated outside Pakistan as per the municipal law outlined in the CPC and the principles of private international law. The Court found that:Sections 16 to 20 of the CPC limit the jurisdiction of Pakistani courts to properties situated within Pakistan.The domicile of the deceased and the location of the property in England necessitate the application of English law, adhering to the principles of lex situs for immovable property and lex domicilii for movable property.Facts: Facts: The legal heirs of Muhammad Anwar Irshad (deceased), represented by the appellants, filed a suit in a Civil Court in Lahore for the administration of the deceased's property, which included assets in both Pakistan and England. The respondents, also legal heirs, contested the jurisdiction of Pakistani courts over the foreign property, arguing that Pakistani courts could not adjudicate on property located outside their territorial jurisdiction.---Legal Principles Applied: The Court applied domestic legal principles from the CPC and principles of private international law. The judgment emphasized the importance of respecting the territorial jurisdiction of foreign states and the need for courts to adhere to established principles of private international law in cases involving cross-border succession and property matters.----Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts that Pakistani courts lack jurisdiction over the foreign property in question. The judgment underscores the limited territorial jurisdiction of Pakistani courts and the significance of private international law in determining jurisdiction and applicable law in cross-border legal matters.

Summary: (a) Islamic Law-------Gift---Ingredients---Donor, an illiterate lady---Attorney of donor gifted share of sister infavour of brother during pendency of suit for declaration, partition, possession, injunction etc.and preliminary decree was passed---Contention of plaintiff was that her counsel had notproperly assisted her---Validity---Impugned gift deed executed by the attorney did not haveprerequisites and essentials of a gift---Neither there was offer of gift by the donor nor acceptanceof the same by the donee and possession had also not been delivered to the donee---Gift made bythe attorney was also beyond the powers conferred upon the attorney---Specific clause ofconferment of power making gift by the attorney must be mentioned in the power of attorney---No such power was ever conferred upon the attorney in the present case---Impugnedgift/compromise deed was frivolous, fictitious, fabricated, unauthorized and an illegal document---Preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court had no legal weight in circumstances---Plaintiffwas entitled for her legal share in the suit property---Impugned preliminary order/decree passedby the Trial Court was set aside and suit was decreed---Collector (Revenue) was directed todistribute the property of deceased to all the share holders including the plaintiff in accordance with shari shares---Revision was allowed in circumstances.2005 SCMR 1368; 2006 CLC 1893; PLD 1990 SC 1; PLD 2010 SC 582; PLD 2005 SC705; and PLD 1996 SCR 193 ref.Mst. Shumal Begum v. Mst. Gulzar Begum and 3 others 1994 SCMR 818; Mst. Bandi v.Province of Punjab and others 2005'SCMR 1368 and Mst. Parsan Bibi and another v. Mst. RaziaBibi and 10 others 2006 CLC 1893 rel.(b) Islamic Law-------Inheritance---Property would devolve upon the legal heirs without any intervention of courtand clergy the moment propositus died.Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 and Mst. Subanv. Allah Ditta and others 2007 SCMR 635 rel.(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 115---Preliminary consent decree---Revision without filing of appeal---Competence---Consent decree was not appealable and non-filing of appeal against the said preliminary decreewas no bar for filing revision petition.1989 SCMR 1826; PLD 1980 SC 45; AIR 1974 SC 1069 and Registrar, High Court ofBalochistan v. Abdul Majeed and 3 others PLD 2013 Bal. 26 rel.(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Revisional powers were supervisoryin nature and matter would remain between the High Court and court subordinate to it---Wherean order/judgment suffered from inherent jurisdictional defect or was void and no appeal hadbeen preferred even then High Court could exercise revisional jurisdiction---Non-mentioning ofdate of decree would not affect revisional jurisdiction of High Court.N.W.F.P. Govt. v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan PLD 1993 SC 418 and Ghulam Hussain andothers v. Faiz Muhammad and others PLD 1991 SC 218 rel.(e) Power of attorney-------Alienation of property---Gift---Scope---Power of attorney by its description does not includethe power to make gift, alienate or dispose of the property of the principal, unless specific andexhaustive clause was mentioned in it.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.127---Suit for declaration---Inheritance---Limitation---Pleadings---Admission---Estoppel, principle of---Applicability---Plaintiffs had proved thatdefendants were regularly making payment of their shares---Defendants had not produced anyevidence and their pleadings could not be taken as evidence---Admission would exclude theapplicability of principle of estoppel on the part of plaintiffs---Present dispute was with regard toenforcement of right of share of legacy and Art. 127 of Limitation Act, 1908 was applicable---Suit was within time---Impugned mutations were result of misrepresentation, forgery and fraud---No limitation would arise against such void transaction---Findings recorded by the Trial Courtwere well reasoned---Plaintiffs were real daughters of the deceased and after his death theybecame co-sharers/co-owners to the extent of their respective shares in the legacy of deceased---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.2007 SCMR 1446 ref.Mst. Jannatan and others v. Taggi through L.Rs. PLD 2006 SC 322; Muhammad Zobairand others v. Muhammad Shareef 2005 SCMR 1217 and Mst. Gohar Khanum and others v. Mst.Jamila Jan and others 2014 SCMR 801 rel.(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)------Art. 127---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration to enforce right to sharein the joint property---Limitation---Period of twelve years had been provided from the date ofexclusion from joint family property to enforce a right to share therein in the legacy.(c) Estoppel-------Admission would exclude the principle of estoppel.(d) Pleadings-------Pleadings could not be taken as evidence.

Summary: The background of the case involved a dispute over ownership of a piece of land in Mouza Fateh Pur Tehsil Mailsi. The land initially belonged to Noor Samand, and after his death, an inheritance mutation was sanctioned in favor of the petitioner and his four sisters. Allegedly, the sisters later sold their shares in the land to the petitioner. However, disputes arose regarding the validity of this sale and related mutations. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of ownership and to challenge certain orders passed by revenue authorities. Throughout the legal proceedings, the petitioner claimed to have purchased the land from his sisters through an oral sale. In the case, several witnesses were presented, including Shah Behram, Noor Hayat, and Muhammad Hussain. However, the petitioner himself did not testify, and his attorney deposed on his behalf. This raised issues about the sufficiency of evidence. The court noted significant inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses, particularly regarding the payment of the sale consideration. The court also emphasized that oral sale transactions involving illiterate individuals, especially women, require careful scrutiny and strong evidence. It further clarified that the revenue authorities are not responsible for determining ownership disputes, which fall under the jurisdiction of civil courts. Ultimately, the lower appellate court's judgment was upheld by the Lahore High Court, as it correctly analyzed the evidence and made findings based on merit. The petitioner's revision petition was dismissed for lacking merit, and the judgment of the lower appellate court was affirmed.

Summary: (a) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)-------Ss. 5(2), 372 & 384---Application for succession certificate---Appeal under S.384 ofSuccession Act, 1925 against dismissal of application for certificate---Jurisdiction of court---"Domicile"---Interpretation and determination---Deceased was temporarily residing out ofcountry and claimed amount lying there---Competent forum---Application for issuance ofsuccession certificate, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on ground that predecessor wasdomiciled of a foreign country and amount claimed was lying abroad---Applicants contendedthat their predecessor was permanent resident to Pakistan and had gone abroad to earn livelihoodwhere he was temporarily residing---Validity---Applicants and their predecessor were permanentresidents of Pakistan---Correct criteria for issuance of succession certificate was domicile of thedeceased at time of his death---Nothing was available on record that could show that thedeceased had intended to abandon Pakistan for ever---Trial court while dismissing applicationfiled under S.372 of Succession Act, 1925, had erred in facts and law while interpreting the word'domicile'---Word 'domicile' had not been defined in Succession Act, 1925---In ordinary meaning'domicile' meant the place where a man lived or had his home---Impugned order was set asideand Trial Court was directed to decide succession application on merits in accordance with law---Appeal was accepted in circumstance. (b) Words and phrases-------"Domicile"---Meaning and definition.Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) Vol. 8, para. 421; Black's Law Dictionary (9thEdn.) by Bryan A. Garner and/Dicy and Morris on Conflict of Laws (10th Edn.) Vol. 1, p.100ref.

Summary: The plaintiffs, claimed inheritance rights through Malik Jamilullah's wife, Mst. Zahida Bibi. The defendants, contested these claims, arguing that Mst. Zareena Yousafi was not entitled to any part of Malik Jamilullah's inheritance due to their belief that her marriage to him was short-lived and that Ghulam Abbas, one of the petitioners, was not his legitimate son. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' case, as they failed to produce evidence supporting their claims despite multiple opportunities. However, the Addl. District Judge set aside this judgment and remanded the case, primarily focusing on issues related to the production of secondary evidence, ignoring the primary issue of evidence non-production by the plaintiffs. The judge also emphasized that the Addl. District Judge had wrongly prioritized secondary evidence issues over the failure to produce primary evidence. According to the judge, the production of secondary evidence should only be permitted under specific circumstances outlined in the law. Ultimately, the High Court set aside the Addl. District Judge's decision and upheld the trial court's judgment, thereby rejecting the plaintiffs' claims to the inheritance. The judge concluded that the plaintiffs had not provided valid and reasonable grounds for their claims, and their request for secondary evidence was improperly handled.

Summary: (a) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)-------Ss. 372, 373 & 375----Succession certificate---Condition of furnishing of surety---Scope---Petitioner, being sole legal heir of her husband who was government servant, filed petition forobtaining succession certificate and other legal heirs did not object to issuance of successioncertificate---Trial Court allowed said petition subject to production of two sureties equal toamount of the succession certificate---Petitioner filed application seeking dispensation withfurnishing of said two sureties, which the court dismissed---Petitioner contended that her casewas not covered under S.373(3) or S.373(4) of Succession Act, 1925, and Trial Court in terms ofS.375 of the Act had discretion to dispense with furnishing of surety in appropriate cases---Validity---Trial Court passed impugned order of dismissal of application without giving anyreason and mentioning contentions of petitioner's counsel---Impugned order, being "nonspeaking" and resulting from non-application of judicial mind, was not a judicial order---TrialCourt, declaring petitioner to be sole legal heir of the deceased and entitled to issuance ofsuccession certificate, should not have insisted upon furnishing of sureties---Petitioner wasentitled to grant of succession certificate without furnishing sureties---High Court accepting thepetition ordered issuance of succession certificate in favour of petitioner subject to obtainingpersonal surety bond of any government official. Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry v. Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Production,Government of Pakistan PLD 2004 SC 413 rel.(b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)--------Ss. 373 (3) & (4) & 375(1)----Succession certificate---Furnishing of surety---Word "Shall" inS.375 of Succession Act, 1925 is used with reference to class of cases, which fell underSs.373(3) & 373(4) of Succession Act, 1925, wherein, court decides to proceed in summarymanner to determine right as to grant of succession certificate---In such cases S.375(1) ofSuccession Act, 1925 makes it incumbent on court to order issuance of certificate subject tofurnishing of surety in addition to execution of bond---Where case for grant of successioncertificate does not fall under S.373(3) or S.373(4) of Succession Act, 1925, it is discretionarywith court to require the person in whose favour certificate is issued to give surety as conditionfor grant thereof.(c) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)--------S. 375----Object---Object of demanding security from person, in whose favour successioncertificate has been granted by court, is to ensure proper rendition of account by him regardingdebts and securities of deceased received by him and to provide indemnity to such person, whomay be entitled to whole or any part of these debts and securities---Where all heirs of deceasedwere before court and there was no doubt that any other person was or may be entitled to theestate of deceased and all such persons were adult and major and they expressed their consent forgrant of succession certificate in favour of one of the heirs of deceased, court in such clear casesmay not at all insist upon furnishing of security.