Summary: In this case, the petitioner challenges the dismissal of her suit for declaration with permanent injunction by both the trial court and the appellate court. The petitioner disputes her brother's ownership of the suit property, claiming it was registered in his name as a benami transaction out of love and affection. However, the lower courts found her claim time-barred and lacking in evidence. The petitioner argued that ownership documents were presented in court, but the court emphasizes that presenting such documents alone is insufficient to establish a benami transaction. The court underscored the need for cogent, legal, relevant, and unimpeachable evidence to definitively prove a benami transaction. The court further cited a judgment stating that claiming inheritance of property not owned by the deceased is disobedience and a violation of Islamic principles. Consequently, the court finds that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a benami transaction and dismissed the revision petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts as in accordance with the law.

Summary: The suits involve a dispute over certain immovable properties, specifically three plots in Karachi: Plot No. 219, Plot No. 218, and Plot No. 36-E. The main parties in these suits are Khurram Zafar and Sarah Khurram, who were previously married but divorced. Both parties claim ownership of the mentioned properties. Defendant is stated to hold the title to the properties and is in possession of the original title documents. Plaintiff claims to be the actual owner of the properties and alleges that they were acquired in Defendant's name for "cultural obligations" and "tax avoidance" but without any intention to transfer ownership. The court finds that Plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence to establish his claim of benami ownership or to explain his lack of possession of the properties and custody of the title documents. On the other hand, Sarah Khurram appears to have unity of title and possession, making a case for the preservation of her possession. As a result, the court denies the relief sought by Khurram Zafar's applications and dismisses them. However, the relief sought in which is an injunction to preserve Sarah Khurram's possession, is allowed.

Summary: Significant to mention that for benami transaction there are certain requirements especially when the dispute is between the real owner and benamidar and, if the dispute is between 3rd party on one hand, and the real owner and the benamidar on the other hand, then its consideration would lose its importance and in such situation the conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances are to be kept in view. To determine, whether the transaction was a benami one or not, source of consideration money and the possession of the title documents are essential elements to determine the nature of the transaction where the dispute arose in between the benamidar and the real owner or in case of 3rd party, some trait for benami transaction are; i. Source of considerationii. From whose custody original title-deed of property is produced, and who possesses the prior deed by which the vendors proved their own title;iii. Who is in possession of property, and;iv. Motive for the benami transaction and, No doubt, benami being neither a Law nor Rule, extreme caution is to be observed, when a genuine transaction is to be made in a good faith. To arrive at a just conclusion as to whether transaction is benami or not, the above mentioned factors are to be taken into consideration.While dealing with application under section 265-K, no doubt, the legislature in its wisdom did not leave the question of the recording of evidence as a condition before taking action under said provision. The use of the expression at any stage of the case is indicative enough of the intention that any such stage could be the very initial stage, after taking cognizance or it could be a middle stage after recording some statements or even, it could be later stage as well but the provision under section 265-k should be used with great care and caution. Usually, the criminal case should be allowed, to be disposed of on merits after recording of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 342 of Code of Criminal Procedure and under section 340(2) of the said Code if so desired and hearing arguments of both the parties. Provisions of section 249-A, 265-k and 561-A should not normally be pressed into action for deciding the fate of a criminal case. More-so, the Trial Court is fully competent to appraise, analyze and scrutinize prosecution evidence with a view to find out whether the charge is ground-less or that there is no satisfactory and reliable evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, however, where there are more accused than one and one of them move an application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) then in such a situation the approach of the Court, to analyze and appraise the evidence, would be different from the one where there is only one accused facing trial.

Summary: Certain principles, to prove the benami transaction, have been discussed.

Summary: In order to prove a transaction to to be benami and actually purchased by a party alleging to have paid the sale consideration, the ratio-decidendi laid down by august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Judgments reported as 2008 SCMR 143, 2009 SCMR 1045, 2005 SCMR 577 has to be followed.

Summary: -----1. Benami Transactions – Burden of Proof: (Benami Transactions; Civil Procedure Code, 1908) The burden of proving a transaction as benami lies on the party asserting it. This must be discharged with clear, cogent, and definite evidence. Mere possession or a family relationship does not suffice to prove ownership in a benami transaction. (PLD 1972 SC 139; 2014 SCMR 1779) -----2. Ownership and Possession – Legal Title vs. Alleged Family Settlement: (Specific Relief Act, 1877; Section 42) Legal ownership, as evidenced by registered documents, prevails over claims based on alleged oral family settlements, especially when such settlements are unsupported by independent evidence or documentation. Possession alone does not establish ownership rights. -----3. Power of Attorney – Scope and Limitations: (Contract Act, 1872; Power of Attorney Act, 1882) A power of attorney is limited to the express authority granted within its terms. Authorization to manage, construct, or collect rent does not extend to transferring ownership or creating proprietary rights in favor of the attorney. -----4. Mesne Profits – Entitlement of Owner: (Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XX Rule 12) A rightful owner is entitled to mesne profits for the period during which possession was unlawfully retained by another. In this case, mesne profits at Rs.5,000 per month were granted from the date of suit till delivery of possession. -----5. Family Arrangements and Trust – Evidentiary Requirements: Claims of ownership arising from oral family arrangements or implied trust must be substantiated with documentary or independent evidence. Absence of corroborative evidence renders such claims baseless. -----6. Long Possession – Not a Substitute for Ownership: Long possession, even exceeding two decades, does not confer ownership rights against a legal owner, particularly when such possession arises from trust or agency. -----7. Disposition Appeals Dismissed: The judgment of the trial court decreeing respondent No.1’s suit for possession and mesne profits and dismissing the appellant’s suit for declaration was upheld. Mesne profits of Rs.5,000 per month were confirmed.

Summary: The case involves M/s Sefam (Pvt.) Ltd., a private company engaged in exporting and selling textile products in Pakistan and abroad under various brand names.The issue arose when it was discovered during a sales tax audit that the company was diverting a significant portion of its sales proceeds to a secret bank account held at Standard Chartered Bank Limited, Shadman Branch, Lahore, in the names of Aftab Ahmad and Asif Mehmood, without disclosing this account in its financial records. The auditors also found that the company's various outlets were sending their sale receipts to the head office, with some proceeds deposited into the company's official account and others into the undisclosed Benami account.Based on this information, the tax authorities initiated proceedings against the company under Section 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and issued a Show Cause Notice under Sections 122(9)/122(1). The company's response was deemed unsatisfactory, leading to an order dated 30-6-2011, which determined that the company had suppressed sales amounting to Rs. 194,955,973 and made an addition to its income under Section 111 accordingly.The company appealed this decision, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order. However, the Tribunal, in its order dated 25-6-2012, ruled in favor of the company, stating that there was no "definite information" to justify proceedings against the company under Section 122(5) and that the addition made under Section 111(1)(b) was unlawful as it was based on Section 111(1)(d), which was added through the Finance Act, 2011, and could not be applied retrospectively to the company's case, which pertained to Tax Year-2005.The tax department then filed a reference application before the Lahore High Court, presenting two main questions for determination:Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the transfer of sale proceeds from the company's branches to employees' bank accounts did not constitute "definite information" under Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.Whether the addition made under Section 111(1)(b) was unlawful based on the provisions of Section 111(1)(d), which was inserted through the Finance Act, 2011.The court concluded that the material obtained during the sales tax audit qualified as "definite information" under Section 122(5) and that the company's case fell under Section 111(1)(b), not Section 111(1)(d). Therefore, the court allowed the tax department's application.

Summary: Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.Family suit for recovery of Dower filed by petitioner against her husband respondent No.7/ defendant No.1 and other contesting defendants for decree about landed property etc on the basis of Dower deed. Husband and petitioner/wife are residing alongwith their children in one house. Various litigation against her husband U/S. 12(2), C.P.C by his real brother, sisters and criminal case U/Ss.419, 420, PPC are pending which proves that suit is benami filed on the instance of her husband to deprive lawful purchasers from the property sold to them much before Dower deed scribed in the year 2006 by respondent No.7/ defendant No.1 (husband). No miscarriage of justice in the impugned judgment pointed out. Writ petition dismissed.

Summary: The petitioner claims that the lower courts misread and did not properly appreciate the evidence. The suit revolves around a land dispute, with the petitioner alleging that a gift mutation in favor of the respondent was a Benami transaction and should be set aside. However, the court notes that the petitioner himself, being the father of the respondent, willingly transferred the property through a gift mutation.The court scrutinizes the evidence presented and concludes that the petitioner failed to prove that the gift was Benami. It emphasizes the legal requirements for a valid gift under Muhammadan Law, stating that the concept of Benami is not applicable to gifts. The court dismisses the petitioner's claims, finding no illegality or irregularity in the judgments of the lower courts. The order concludes by dismissing the writ petition in limine.

Summary: ---Issues Presented:--The validity of the NOC issued for the sale of land and the subsequent cancellation by the PCBL.--The legality of the agreements to sell land owned by the National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation (NICFC) to the petitioners