Summary: Background: The appellant challenged the consolidated judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court in Islamabad, which decreed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction filed by respondent Malik Aurangzeb, while dismissing the appellant's suit for declaration, possession, and recovery of mesne profits. The dispute arose over the ownership of a plot in Islamabad that was sold to the respondent through a power of attorney granted to the appellant's brother, Qurban Hussain Anwar. The appellant contested the sale, claiming that the power of attorney and the sale agreement were forged and that he had not authorized the sale. -----Issues: 1- Whether the power of attorney and the sale agreement were forged documents. -----2- Whether the appellant's allegations of fraud and collusion were proven. -----3- Whether the respondent was entitled to specific performance of the sale agreement. -----4- Whether the appellant was required to execute a sale deed for the property based on the agreement. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the lower court’s decision. The appellant's allegations of forgery and fraud were found to be unsupported by sufficient evidence. The power of attorney was valid, and the sale agreement was executed legally between the appellant’s attorney (his brother) and the respondent. The appellant failed to prove his case, and the respondent provided credible evidence, including the marginal witnesses to the power of attorney and the sale agreement. The appellant’s failure to produce compelling evidence or properly challenge the documents led the Court to confirm that the sale agreement should be honored, and the appellant was directed to execute the sale deed. -----Citations/Precedents: Order V, Rules 2 and 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Summary: [Civil Procedure Code CPC (Suit for Possession & Mesne Profit)] Suit for possession of immovable property and mesne profits. Suit Decreed----The judgment rendered by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Suit No. 1367 of 2007 involved a dispute between Muhammad Iqbal Dawood and Abdul Qayoom Hoth over the possession and income from a land measuring 90 acres near Morio, Faqir Goth Taluka, and District Malir, Karachi. The plaintiffs sought recovery of possession, mesne profits, and injunction against the defendant.The plaintiffs claimed rights over the land, which was allotted to them by the Deputy Commissioner and controlled by the Board of Revenue for agricultural purposes. The defendants contested the suit, alleging a private settlement (Faisla) favoring them and seeking a counterclaim for expenses incurred on the land.After considering the evidence, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs. It determined that the defendant defaulted in paying the annual contract amount for the land and deprived the plaintiffs of income. The court dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for lack of evidence and awarded mesne profits to the plaintiffs. The defendant was ordered to hand over possession of the land and pay specified amounts to the plaintiffs.The judgment cited relevant legal provisions, precedents, and testimonies to support its decision. It highlighted discrepancies in the defendant's claims and emphasized the plaintiffs' rights over the land. The court's ruling aimed to restore the plaintiffs' possession and compensate them for losses incurred due to the defendant's actions.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.3 & Art.120---Suit for declaration---Limitation---Plaintiffs challenged mutation entries recorded in the revenue record---Suit was dismissed beingtime barred---Validity---Suit filed in the year 2009 to challenge the mutation entries of 1979 wasbarred by time---High Court observed that aggrieved person had to pursue his legal remedy withdiligence---If a suit was filed beyond limitation then each day's delay had to be explained---Noexplanation had been given in the present case---Plaintiffs had not specified the date when theycame to know about the impugned mutations---No issue was framed with regard to limitation butsuit was dismissed on the ground of limitation---Plaint could be rejected if suit was filed after theperiod of limitation---No material piece of evidence had been ignored or excluded out ofconsideration by the courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees---Revisionwas dismissed in circumstances.Muhammad Raz Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. and another PLD 1997 SC 397 andHakim Muhammad Buta and another v. Habib Ahmed and others PLD 1985 SC 153 rel.(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------Art. 120---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Suit for declaration---Limitation---Limitation to file a declaratory suit was six years.(c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------S. 3---Suit instituted after the period of limitation was to be dismissed, even if limitation hadnot been pleaded as defence.(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 144---Restitution---Scope and object---Where a decree passed by a Court of first instancehad been varied or reversed, said Court on the application of any party entitled to any benefitshould cause such restitution and place the parties in a position which they had prior to the decree---Question of restitution would arise where a decree was passed in favour of one partyand the decree holder obtained subject matter of the decree in execution of the same but decreeon appeal or revision was reversed or varied---Object of restitution was to place the parties in thesame position which they would have occupied prior to the decree---Court to whom suchapplication was filed had powers to order for restitution and for refund of costs and for paymentof interest, damages, compensation and mesne profits which were consequential on suchvariation or reversal---Party who suffered a loss on account of wrong decree must becompensated---Initial decree of Trial Court was liable to be set aside---Any benefit received bythe decree holder under the decree refundable or returnable and parties were entitled to benefit ofrestitution on the variance or reversal of the decree.(e) Administration of justice-------Party not to be prejudiced by the act of the Court.

Summary: [Civil Procedure Code CPC (Declaration and Permanent Injunction), Civil Procedure Code CPC] Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 8---Suit for declaration, possession, mesne profits and damages---Contention of plaintiff was that he was owner of suit land whose possession had been taken by the defendants forcibly---Validity---Plaintiff had established that he was owner of suit property---Possession of defendants upon the suit land could not be lawful---Unlawful occupant of suit property could only be termed as "trespasser"---No fraud had been committed in leasing the suit property in favour of plaintiff---Plaintiff had been denied to enjoy ownership right in the plot in question and he was entitled to mesne profit @ Rs. 500/ per day from the date of illegal possession of defendants---No documentary evidence had been produced to justify the claim of damages, therefore same could not be awarded on account of increase in cost of construction material---Plaintiff was declared lawful owner of suit land and he was entitled for vacant possession from defendants and mesne profits jointly and severally---Suit was decreed in circumstances. ---- The judgment from the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in Suit No. 365 of 1994, dated October 25, 2013, involves the plaintiff Saleem Ahmed Mirza, who sought a declaration of ownership, possession, mesne profits/damages, and permanent injunction regarding a plot of land in Karachi. The plaintiff had purchased the plot from Mst. Shahida Ghafoor, with the Karachi Development Authority transferring the plot and executing a lease in his favor. The defendant, Retd. Major Syed Iftikhar Hussain Zaidi, along with defendants Muhammad Saleem and Syed Hussain Ali Zaidi, unlawfully occupied the plot. The plaintiff's complaint was deemed a civil matter, leading to this suit.The court addressed several issues, including the plaintiff's ownership, the validity of the lease deed, and the defendants' unlawful occupation and trespassing. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, establishing his ownership and right to possession, dismissing the defendants' claims based on an alleged agreement of sale and an arbitration award, which were found to be set aside and not affecting the plaintiff's rights.The judgment declared the plaintiff as the lawful owner entitled to possession and mesne profits from the defendants, with the suit being decreed in terms of prayer clauses A, B, and C, along with the cost of the suit. The defendants' lack of appearance and representation, as well as their failure to substantiate their claims, contributed to the court's findings in favor of the plaintiff.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXXVIII, R. 1, O. XX, R. 12 & S.151---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 115---Partition Act (IV of 1893), S. 4---Suit for partition---Application for preliminary decree forpossession and mesne profits---Furnishing of surety---Estoppel---Inherent powers of court---Plaintiff filed suit for partition wherein she moved an application for preliminary decree forpossession and mesne profits which was dismissed however, Trial Court directed defendant tofurnish surety amount---Defendant filed application for reduction of the same which wasdismissed---Validity---Impugned order was passed with the consent of parties---Defendant wasestopped to challenge the validity of said order on the principle of estoppel---Defendant whilefiling application for reduction of surety amount was satisfied with the nature of order but wasaggrieved of the quantum of surety amount---Defendant could not be allowed to approbate andreprobate---No misexercise of jurisdiction nor any illegality, irregularity, perversity or infirmitywas found in the impugned order---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 115---Revision---Competency---Order passed on application under S.151, C.P.C. wasappealable and revision was not competent.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 8---Suit for possession---Gift---Proof---Exclusion of other legal heirs---House in questionwas owned by father of parties and after the death of their father, plaintiff sought recovery ofpossession of the house on the basis of a registered gift deed executed in his favour---Suit wasdecreed in favour of plaintiff by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal andsuit was dismissed---Validity---No witness deposed as to why gift was made in favour ofplaintiff and donor used to live with him---No evidence was available about health of the donortill his death and types of special services rendered by the plaintiff---No reason was on record asto why other children were divested of their legitimate rights and were denied their rightfulclaim---Act of making a gift was a prerogative of an owner and it should not have been a covertexercise but an overt recital on the beat of a drum---Purported gift was brought in the notice ofheirs after death of the donor which also cast doubt on the transaction---If such was intention ofthe donor, it would have seen the light of the day during his lifetime, so that the donor himselfcould have defended and endorsed execution of gift deed---Suit was brought after the death ofthe donor and averments of plaint were sufficient to hold that gift was kept secret and after thedeath of donor, suit was filed through which not only possession was claimed but mesne profitswere claimed from the date of execution of purported gift deed, notwithstanding the fact thatdonor remained alive till year, 1983, whereas purported gift deed was got registered in year,1980---No witness had uttered a single word about execution of the document in his presence---Even testimony of commission did not establish execution of purported gift as it was not foundin evidence that donor had signed before him or he made any determination about gift---HighCourt declined to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court---Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.Province of the Punjab through Collector District Khushab, Jauharabad and others v. Haji Yaqoob Khan and others 2007 SCMR 554; Reham Ali and another v. Abdul and 3 others 1980CLC 1110; Saida v. Pinnu and another PLD 1979 SC (AJ&K) 245; Mst. Sardaran Bibi v. TajDin PLD 1993 Lah. 411; Khursheedul Islam v. Mrs. Qamar Jahan 1989 CLC 1467; AmirullahKhan and another v. Muhammad Akram 2004 YLR 709; Auqaf Department v. Javed Shuja andothers 1995 CLC 1173; Hoshiar Ali v. Ghulam Sabir 1993 CLC 2476; Mst. Allah Jawai andothers v. Maqbool Shah and others 2005 MLD 261; Barrister Ch. Muhammad Abdus Saleem and4 others v. Mst. Tanveer Mirza and 3 others 1996 SCMR 351 and Province of the Punjabthrough Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, P.W.D, Secretariat Old Anarkali Lahoreand 3 others v. Ch. Mehraj Din and Co. through Proprietor 2003 CLC 504 distinguished.

Summary: Plj 1996 Karachi 590 Present Hamid Ali Mirza J Mst Qamarun Nishan and 10 others - versus CH Muhammad Umer (deceased) and 13 others - Respondents II - Appeal No 395 of 1995 dismissed on 22101995 (i) Civil Procedure Code 1908 (Act V of 1908) - - S 100 - - Possession mesne profits and permanent injunction - Suit for - Suit decreed - Appeal dismissed - Challenge to - Second appeal is permissible US 100 on specified grounds - Appellants have not been able to point out any ground whereby appeal could fall within mischief of section 100 - Nothing has been shown to how decision given by courts below is contrary to law or any usage having force of law or there has been failure of courts below to determine issue of law or issue of usage - Held Courts below have properly appreciated evidence on record and no illegality warranting inteiference has been pointed out in second appeal - Appeal dismissed [P 597] B (ii) Words and Phrases - - Estoppel - General rule of - As per Bigelow on Estoppel Sixth Edition in following words it may be laid down as a broad proposition that one who without mistake induced by opposite - party has taken a particular position deliberately in course of litigation must act consistently with it one cannot play fast and loose [P 596] A Mr Hyder Raza Naqvi Advocate for Appellant Mr Mumtaz Ahmad Shaikh Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Appeal dismissed.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----S. 96---Regular First Appeal---Concurrent findings---Scope---Appeal against judgment and decree decreeing suit for declaration, possession, and mesne profits---High Court observed that appellant failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations under agreement to sell---New grounds raised in appeal not permissible unless pleaded before trial court---Failure to frame specific issues immaterial once controversy was clear and evidence was recorded accordingly---Findings of trial court based on proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence upheld---Appeal dismissed. (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) ----S. 53-A---Doctrine of part performance---Scope---Protection of possession---Appellant sought protection under doctrine of part performance without fulfilling contractual obligations---High Court held that willingness to perform is a condition precedent for invoking Section 53-A---Appellant’s failure to deposit balance sale consideration disentitled him from claiming benefit of part performance---Possession without compliance with contractual obligations not protected. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ----S. 39---Cancellation of instruments---Scope---Misplaced plea---Appellant’s contention under Section 39 found irrelevant where relief of cancellation was neither properly pleaded nor substantiated---Burden to establish entitlement to equitable relief lies upon party invoking it---Appellant failed to establish claim. Cited Cases: • Shafi Muhammad v. Khanzada Gul (2007 SCMR 368) • Amjad Ikram v. Mst. Asiya Kausar and 2 others (2015 SCMR 1) • Mehr Din (represented by Legal Heirs) v. Dr. Bashir Ahmed Khan and 2 others (1985 SCMR 1) • Muhammad Akram alias Raja v. Muhammad Ishaque (2004 SCMR 1130) • Eada Khan v. Mst. Ghanwar and others (2004 SCMR 1524) • Fazal Muhammad Bhatti and another v. Mst. Saeeda Akhtar and 2 others (1993 SCMR 2018) • Ahmad Waqas and others v. Ishtiaq Ali and others (PLD 2022 Lahore 313) • Muhammad Yousaf v. Munawar Hussain and 5 others (2000 SCMR 204) • Sana Ullah and another v. Muhammad Manzoor and another (PLD 1996 SC 256) • Qasim Ali v. Khadim Hussain (deceased) through Legal Representatives and another (PLD 2005 Lahore 654) ---- "Willingness to perform its part of contract is crucial ingredient for a party to claim protection u/s 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882"

Summary: (a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) – S. 54: Ownership—Registered sale deed and mutation—Evidentiary value—Scope—Plaintiffs claimed ownership of the disputed property based on a registered sale deed and mutation entry—Defendants challenged their title and ownership in the written statement—Held, a registered sale deed or mutation entry, though evidential, is not conclusive proof of ownership where the title is expressly disputed—Plaintiffs had not sought a declaratory relief regarding their ownership, which was a prerequisite for consequential reliefs such as injunction and possession—Interim injunction could not be granted in the absence of a clear declaration of ownership—Impugned order granting injunction set aside. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2: Interim injunction—Prerequisite of ownership—Scope—Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief without first seeking a declaration of ownership—Held, where ownership is expressly disputed, a suit for injunction, possession, and mesne profits cannot succeed without first establishing ownership—The Trial Court erred in granting interim injunction without determining maintainability of the suit—Impugned order set aside. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O. XL, R. 1: Appointment of Receiver—Defendants’ application for appointment of Receiver was deferred pending site inspection—Trial Court was required to decide the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the suit before granting interim relief—Failure to do so rendered the interim injunction improper—Appeal allowed. ----Disposition: Appeal allowed—Interim injunction set aside—Trial Court directed to decide maintainability of the suit before granting further relief.

Summary: Background: The appellants challenged the dismissal of their writ petitions regarding proprietary rights over land in "Shamlat Deh." They argued that their rights, based on prior judgments, entitled them to possession of the land. The appellants contested the mutations of land sanctioned by the revenue authorities, asserting these were against their established rights from the earlier court decisions. ----Issues: 1- Whether the mutations sanctioned by the revenue authorities were lawful. 2- Whether the appellants' rights to the land, as claimed based on prior judgments, were properly recognized by the revenue authorities. 3- Whether the land in question, being part of "Shamlat Deh," should be distributed based on possession or the village proprietary body. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to thoroughly examine the issues raised, especially the interpretation of earlier judgments ("Ladhoo vs. B.O.R." cases). The Court sought clarity on whether the land, part of Shamlat Deh, could be distributed based on possession or village proprietary rights. The revenue authorities’ decisions were challenged for allegedly disregarding the legal precedents and the village proprietary system. The Court also highlighted the need to examine how the earlier High Court and Supreme Court judgments were implemented by the revenue authorities. The case was allowed to proceed with further documents to be submitted by both parties, and the final determination of mesne profits was deferred until the conclusion of the case. ----vCitations/Precedents: Ladhoo vs. B.O.R. (1991 MLD 99) Ladhoo vs. B.O.R. in CP. No.823 and 824-L of 1990 Judgment of Lahore High Court dated 29-07-1990 Supreme Court of Pakistan judgment dated 01-04-1991