Summary: (Against the order dated 05.03.2025, passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in Civil Revision No.125 of 2025). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 113---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, belated filing of---Limitation---Execution of the agreement to sell, denial of---Not mentioning proper description of property in the agreement to sell---Effect---Vendor being an illiterate old lady---The petitioner (vendee) allegedly entered into agreement to sell with the predecessor of respondents (their mother/vendor)in 1983---Earnest money was allegedly paid and remaining amount was agreed to be paid after the conclusion of the litigation pending in the courts---Later on, the predecessor of the respondents passed away in the year 1993---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was filed by the petitioner (vendee) in 2017---Held: No plausible reason was put-forth by the petitioner for such a long delay in filing the suit and the same on the face of it was barred by time and there was no valid explanation for such a delay---This aspect of the case was also considered by the High Court and courts below---Similarly, it was held by all courts that the alleged agreement to sell was an ambiguous document and no proper description of property was there---Moreover, the alleged vendor was an illiterate old lady being mother of four sons and three daughters but none of them was the signatory of the alleged agreement to sell as a witness to the same and similarly all the respondents had categorically denied the factum of alleged agreement to sell with the petitioner/vendor---No misreading, non-reading or any other material irregularity and illegality in the findings of the High Court and the courts below were pointed out---Petition being meritless was dismissed and leave was refused, in circumstances. Hameed-uz-Zaman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd May, 2025.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 185(3)---Civil revision---Leave to appeal---Concurrent findings of fact---Scope of interference by Supreme Court---Petitioner’s suit for declaration of ownership based on a gift deed was dismissed by Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court---Held, when three Courts below concurrently appreciate evidence and reach same factual findings, Supreme Court ordinarily does not interfere unless miscarriage of justice or gross illegality is shown---No case for interference made out---Leave refused and petition dismissed. Cited Cases: • Mst. Farzana Zia v. Mst. Saadia Andaleeb (2024 SCMR 916) • Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din (PLJ 2023 SC 8) (b) Gift (Hiba)---Islamic law---Declaration and validity of oral/registered gift---Requirements---Scope **Donor's retention of possession---Effect---**Gift deed relied upon by petitioner showed that donor had retained possession during his lifetime---Held, retention of possession negates one of the essential elements of a valid gift---Where gift deed imposes future rights or obligations, it must be compulsorily registered---In absence of valid delivery of possession, no lawful title passes to donee. Cited Provisions: • Registration Act, 1908, S. 49 • Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S. 123 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (X of 1984) ----Art. 79---Proof of document required by law to be attested---Marginal witnesses---Failure to produce---Effect---Petitioner failed to produce attesting witnesses of the gift deed---Witnesses presented only confirmed signatures without establishing reasons for non-production of marginal witnesses or invoking secondary evidence---Held, mandatory requirements of Art. 79 not fulfilled---No evidentiary value attached to such testimony. ---(d) Islamic Inheritance Principles---Exclusion of legal heirs---Scope and burden of proof---**Petitioner, being grandsons, failed to justify why donor would exclude his sons (legal heirs) from inheritance---Held, burden was on donee to establish circumstances justifying exclusion of heirs---Such facts were neither pleaded nor proved---Courts rightly rejected claim. Cited Cases: • Fareed v. Muhammad Tufail (2018 SCMR 139) • Mst. Tahira Samina v. Javed Saeed Tariq (2024 SCMR 24) ---- (e) Evidence---Oral transaction of gift---Burden and standard of proof---Constructive possession-------In oral or informal transactions, donee must prove gift through unimpeachable evidence, including specific details such as date, time, location, and witnesses---Possession by one heir is presumed to be on behalf of all legal heirs unless rebutted---Held, none of these requirements were fulfilled in the present case. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Shafiq Ullah v. Allah Bakhsh (2021 SCMR 763) • Muhammad Sarwar v. Mumtaz Bibi (2020 SCMR 276) • Mst. Tahira Samina v. Javed Saeed Tariq (2024 SCMR 24) ---- (f) Limitation Act, 1908---Inheritance---Right not extinguished by passage of time---Held, mere passage of time does not defeat rightful claims to inheritance---Limitation is not applicable where fraud is alleged or inheritance right is being claimed. Cited Cases: • Mohammad Boota v. Mst. Fatima (2023 SCMR 1901) • Syed Kausar Ali Shah v. Syed Farhat Hussain Shah (2022 SCMR 1558)

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) ----S. 48---Execution of decree---Limitation period---Principle of merger---Appellate decree as starting point of limitation---Scope Where an appellate court affirms, reverses, or modifies a trial court’s decree, the doctrine of merger applies, and the operative decree becomes that of the appellate court—In such cases, execution can be sought within six years from the date of the appellate decree under S. 48 CPC—Trial court’s decree merges into the appellate decree regardless of whether the latter affirms or changes the former—Held, fresh execution petition filed after appellate decision was not barred by limitation—High Court rightly applied S. 48 CPC instead of Article 181 of the Limitation Act—Dismissal of execution by the executing court on ground of limitation was incorrect—Petition dismissed. Cited Cases: • Sahibzadi Maharunisa v. Mst. Ghulam Sughran (PLD 2016 SC 358) • Maluvi Abdul Qayyum v. Syed Ali Asghar Shah (1992 SCMR 241) • Nasrullah Khan v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2013 SC 478) • AIR 1958 SC 868 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co) • AIR 2000 SC 2587 (Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala) • AIR 1963 SC 1124 (Collector of Customs v. East India Commercial Co.) (b) Limitation Act, 1908 ----Art. 181---Application not otherwise provided for---Execution of appellate decree---Non-applicability where S. 48 CPC applies---Effect Held, where decree of trial court is affirmed by appellate court, the operative decree is that of appellate court due to principle of merger—Hence, limitation is governed not by Article 181 (3 years) but by S. 48 CPC (6 years)—Fresh execution petition filed after appellate judgment thus falls within limitation—Bar of Article 181 does not apply in such context. (c) Constitutional Jurisdiction ----Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal---Discretionary relief---Non-interference where no legal or jurisdictional error in High Court’s decision Supreme Court declined to interfere with High Court’s judgment which correctly applied law relating to execution and limitation—No illegality or misapplication of jurisdiction found—Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --- ----S.12(2)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art.181---Challenging the validity of judgment or order on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation by filing an application under S.12(2) CPC--- Maintainability---Essential requirements and necessary ingredients---Consent/compromise decree challenged after a decade---No instance of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction pleaded in the application under S.12(2) C.P.C---Effect---Brief facts of the case were that the a suit for declaration was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs on 29.06.2001 challenging a mutation which was allegedly attested on 19.11.1991, on the basis of fraud---During the pendency of that suit, a compromise deed dated 25.02.2001 was executed, resulting in the suit's withdrawal--- Subsequently, multiple applications under S.12(2) C.P.C. were filed by different respondents, challenging the withdrawal based on fraud and misrepresentation which were dismissed by the civil court, including the one dismissed on 22.01.2014---However, the respondents'/defendants' revision petition was allowed by the District Court, remanding the case for fresh adjudication after recording pro and contra evidence---The petitioners/plaintiffs contended that the judgment dated of the revisional court was illegal and void ab initio and sought restoration of the 22.01.2014 decision whereby respondents' application under S.12(2) was dismissed---Held: Application under S.12(2) C.P.C. did not contain specific details about the fraud that might have been committed in the proceedings in civil suit which including filing of application for withdrawal, recording of statement of attorney and exhibiting documents of compromise therein---In absence of such details in respect of alleged fraud in the proceedings of the court, the application under S.12(2) C.P.C. was not at all maintainable---There was no explanation as to why the applicants remained silent for more than a decade for challenging the order of withdrawal of suit dated 02.03.2001 on 14.01.2013---The application under S.12(2) C.P.C. was also barred by law of limitation specifically Art.181 of Schedule-I of Limitation Act, 1908---Impugned order of revisional court was set aside and application of respondent Nos.1 to 8 filed under S.12(2) C.P.C. stood dismissed---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --- ----S.12(2)---Application under S.12(2) of C.P.C---Essential requirements and necessary ingredients---Not mentioning the specific details of fraud or misrepresentation---Effect---While moving an application under S.12(2) C.P.C. the basis of fraud or misrepresentation has to be specifically described along with necessary details in the very application under S.12(2) C.P.C.---Vague assertion on crucial facts would not be of any legal avail as a mere bold assertion of fraud or concealment would not legally suffice---Moreover, when a person raises a ground of fraud or concealment to allege his claim or defend his stance the same has to be specifically pleaded with clear particulars, otherwise mere allegation not supported by any material would not invariably warrant inquiry of investigation in each case. Messrs Dadabhoy Cement Industries Ltd and 6 others v. National Development Finance Corporation Karachi PlD 2002 SC 500; Bashir Ahmad through Legal Representative and others v. Muhammad Hussain and others PLD 2019 SC 504 and Hafiz Malik Kamran Akbar and others v. Muhammad Shafi (deceased) through LRs and others PLD 2024 SC 262 rel. Misbahullah for Petitioners. Muhammad Ismail Khalil for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) ----S. 12(2)—Ex parte decree—Application for setting aside—Grounds—Fraud—Misrepresentation—Want of jurisdiction—Burden of proof—Scope— Petitioner sought to set aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 15.12.2016 by invoking S.12(2), CPC, alleging that the decree was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation—Trial Court dismissed the application, holding that Petitioner failed to prove any of the statutory grounds under S.12(2), CPC—Held, to invoke S.12(2), CPC, Petitioner must substantiate existence of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction—Personal service was effected, signatures matched those in CNIC and affidavit—Learned Civil Judge was empowered under Article 84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 to compare signatures without forensic report—Petitioner failed to file application for setting aside ex parte proceedings within limitation and instead resorted to S.12(2), CPC without sufficient evidence—No illegality or material irregularity found in impugned order. Cited Provisions: S.12(2), CPC; Art. 84, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; Art. 164, Limitation Act, 1908 (b) Limitation Act, 1908 ----Art. 164—Ex parte decree—Application to set aside—Limitation—30 days—Scope— Application for setting aside ex parte decree must be filed within 30 days under Article 164—Petitioner failed to avail remedy within limitation—Instead, belatedly invoked S.12(2), CPC without establishing fraud or misrepresentation—Held, Petitioner cannot bypass statutory limitation by framing ordinary procedural lapse as fraud. (c) Evidence Law—Signature verification—Article 84, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984—Judicial comparison of handwriting—Scope— Trial Court’s comparison of signatures on service summons and application under S.12(2) held valid—Court competent under Article 84 of QSO, 1984 to form opinion on handwriting—Forensic referral not mandatory where signature comparison is straightforward. Disposition: Civil Revision dismissed—Impugned Order dated 12.09.2023 upheld—Petitioner failed to prove grounds under S.12(2), CPC—No fraud, misrepresentation or jurisdictional defect established—No costs. "Revision against dismissal of application u/s 12(2) CPC filled by petitioner for setting aside Ex-Parte Judgment and Decree dated 15.12.2016."

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Arts. 74, 75 & 79--- Primary and secondary evidence---Photocopies of documents marked in evidence---Admissibility---Proof of documents in civil litigation---Ex-parte judgment---Value of uncorroborated testimony. Appellant, after producing photocopies of various documents without adhering to the conditions prescribed for secondary evidence under Arts. 74 and 75 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, failed to legally substantiate his claim. The learned Trial Court, though marking these photocopies as evidence, rightly held that such documents lacked evidentiary value under the law. Photostat copies could only be admitted as secondary evidence if criteria under Article 74 were fulfilled, such as being certified or verified through mechanical process or comparison. Sole oral testimony of the Appellant without independent corroboration was not sufficient to establish the claim in civil proceedings. Held, mere “marking” of photocopies without due proof renders them inadmissible, and the suit was rightly dismissed on this ground. Cited Statutes: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (Arts. 74, 75, 79) (b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----S. 96--- Regular First Appeal---Limitation---Time-barred appeal---Scope and effect. Appeal against the dismissal of suit was filed after nearly six months, while the prescribed limitation under the Limitation Act, 1908 was 90 days. The Court found the appeal not only meritless but also time-barred. Held, appeal filed after expiry of the statutory limitation period without condonation cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone. Cited Statutes: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (S. 96); Limitation Act, 1908 (c) Civil Litigation---Ex-parte decree---Scope of Court’s discretion in ex-parte proceedings. Despite ex-parte proceedings and absence of contest from Respondents, the Appellant was under a legal obligation to prove his claim through admissible evidence. The principle that civil matters must be decided on merits does not absolve a plaintiff from satisfying evidentiary requirements. Held, dismissal of suit even in ex-parte circumstances was justified due to legal deficiencies in proof and lack of compliance with evidentiary rules. Cited Principle: Burden of proof in ex-parte matters remains upon the plaintiff to satisfy the Court under settled principles of law.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- S. 11, O. VII Rr. 11 & 13, S. 149 ---- Res judicata --- Rejection of plaint --- Fresh suit --- Scope and limitations Where a plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, the rejection does not constitute adjudication on merits and, by fiction of law, is considered a “decree” appealable under Section 2(2), CPC. The Court held that such rejection does not preclude the institution of a fresh suit under Order VII Rule 13 CPC, provided it is not barred by limitation or the principle of res judicata. The doctrine of res judicata under Section 11 CPC requires a judicial determination that the matter was directly and substantially in issue in a previous suit between the same parties, and conclusively decided. Mere observations on title in a prior suit for damages do not bar a subsequent suit for possession and declaration, unless the ingredients of res judicata are strictly met. (b) Limitation Act, 1908 ---- Ss. 3, 5, 14 to 16, Art. 142 ---- Condonation of delay --- Applicability to suits --- Misconception of law --- Mixed question of law and fact The Court clarified that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals and applications, not suits. Delay in filing a suit cannot be condoned under Section 5, but exclusion of time may be claimed under Sections 14 to 16 where applicable. In the instant case, the plaintiffs erroneously filed an application under Section 5 for condonation of delay in instituting the suit for possession. Nonetheless, the Court held that under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period was twelve years from the date of dispossession, and the suit was within time. Dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court for being time-barred, without properly examining the cause of action, was declared a grave illegality. (c) Court Fees Act, 1870 ---- Ss. 4 & 6; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ---- Ss. 148, 149 ---- Deficiency in court fee --- Discretion to allow cure --- Harmonious construction The Court held that a deficient court fee does not render a proceeding fatally defective. Under Section 149 CPC, the Court may allow payment of deficient court fee at any stage of the proceedings. Section 149 acts as a proviso to Sections 4 and 6 of the Court Fees Act, permitting the court to regularize proceedings upon payment of deficient court fee subsequently. The dismissal of the petitioners' appeal by the First Appellate Court without providing an opportunity to cure the deficiency was held to be erroneous and contrary to the principles laid down in PLD 1984 SC 289 (Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakoor Khan) and AIR 1976 SC 1503 (Diwan Bros. case). (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- Ss. 2(2), 96; O. VII R. 11 ---- Rejection of plaint vs. dismissal of suit --- Decree by fiction --- Scope of appealability The Court reiterated that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is deemed a decree under Section 2(2) CPC, appealable under Section 96 CPC. However, such rejection must be based on a proper examination of whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, and whether the suit is barred by law or limitation. The Trial Court’s mechanical dismissal of the suit, without applying Section 3 of the Limitation Act or giving the plaintiff an opportunity to correct procedural defects, was declared unjustified. (e) Judicial duty --- Application of correct law --- Responsibility of judges irrespective of parties’ errors The Court emphasized that judges are duty-bound to apply the correct law, even if the parties or their counsel fail to point it out. Misguided legal advice or poor pleading does not absolve courts of their responsibility to administer justice according to law. The judge must “wear all laws on the sleeve of his robe.” Failure to address key legal provisions, such as limitation or res judicata, in a reasoned manner vitiates judicial orders. (f) Concurrent findings --- When revisable --- Misreading or non-reading of law or evidence --- Corrective jurisdiction of higher courts Concurrent findings of lower courts are not immune from interference where they suffer from legal infirmities, misreading, non-reading, or flawed application of law. The Supreme Court held that when lower courts ignore binding legal provisions or dismiss a suit on misconceived grounds, such findings must be set aside in exercise of appellate jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice. Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed; impugned orders set aside; matter remanded to Trial Court for decision on merits within six months. Cited Cases: • Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakoor Khan (PLD 1984 SC 289) • Abdul Hamid v. Dilawar Hussain (2007 SCMR 945) • Ahmed Ali Talpur v. Sub-Registrar Latifabad, Hyderabad (PLD 2025 SC 302) • Kh. Muhammad Fazil v. Mumtaz Munnawar Khan Niazi (2024 SCMR 1059) • Meeru Khan v. Mst. Naheed Aziz Siddiqui (PLD 2023 SC 912) • Diwan Bros. v. Central Bank of India (AIR 1976 SC 1503) • Deepchand v. Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 1994 SC 1901) Cited Provisions: • Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Ss. 2(2), 3, 5, 11, 96, 148, 149, O. VII Rr. 11 & 13 • Limitation Act, 1908, Ss. 5, 14–16, Art. 142 • Court Fees Act, 1870, Ss. 4 & 6

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 – Arts. 17, 59 & 118 – Burden of Proof – Oral Gift – Fraudulent Mutation Oral gift by illiterate female challenged—Scope of burden—Held, where oral gift is alleged by defendants, particularly against a vulnerable party (illiterate female), threefold burden arises: (i) pleading facts with specificity (date, place, witnesses); (ii) adducing reliable evidence; and (iii) persuasion of court regarding voluntariness and legal validity—Respondents failed to plead or prove these essential elements—No acceptance of gift, no credible witness testimony, and absence of any justification undermined validity of oral gift—Failure to meet burdens rendered the defence unconvincing. (b) Mutation Proceedings – Legal Status – Revenue Entry Does Not Confer Ownership - Mutation No. 914 challenged as fraudulent—Held, mutation is not a document of title but merely an administrative record—Attestation of mutation based on Roznamcha Waqiati or revenue entries cannot by itself confer ownership—Party relying on mutation must prove underlying transaction—Respondents failed to establish valid gift as basis for mutation—Revenue record found to be manipulated to deprive appellant of inherited property. (c) Forensic Evidence – Thumbprint Comparison – Admissibility and Finality - Dactyloscopy in civil proceedings—Held, fingerprint analysis is exact science and conclusive if conducted properly—Appellant’s thumbprint on disputed mutation differed from her verified specimen—Expert report (Exh. P-1) was based on standard methodology and remained unshaken in cross-examination—Forensic finding confirmed appellant's claim of impersonation—Courts below failed to give due weight to conclusive scientific evidence. (d) Civil Procedure – Declaratory Suit – Limitation Act, 1908 – Arts. 95 & 120 – Applicability in Cases of Fraud - Suit for declaration and possession—Scope of limitation—Held, Article 95 applies where party was induced to act due to fraud—However, where plaintiff was not party to the fraud (impersonation), Article 120 applies—Declaratory suit based on subsisting ownership rights not time-barred if filed within six years of accrual of cause—Accrual triggered when respondents first denied her title before Collector—Suit filed within one month thereafter held to be within limitation—Findings of courts below on limitation reversed as legally unsustainable. (e) Constitutional Law – Art. 24 – Right to Property – Protection Against Deprivation by Fraud - Inheritance rights of female family members—Held, fraudulent alienation of inherited land under guise of gift to male relatives without reason or need, especially where donee failed to establish voluntariness or affection, amounts to deprivation of property without lawful authority—Article 24 protects against such deprivation—Gift transaction was a calculated move to strip the appellant of her rightful share—Transaction declared void ab initio due to fraud and collusion—Courts must guard against gender-biased dispossession masked as religious or altruistic gifting. (f) Legal Principle – “Fraud Unravels All” – No Protection of Limitation for Fraudulent Acts - Effect of fraud on limitation and adjudication—Held, fraud vitiates even solemn acts—Where fraud is established, limitation laws cannot be invoked to protect unlawful gain—Courts below erred by dismissing suit solely on grounds of limitation without addressing merits of fraudulent conduct—Litigants cannot be permitted to profit from deceit under the cover of technicality—Judgment emphasized that justice must prevail over procedural default where fraud is proven. Disposition: Appeal allowed; judgments and decrees of courts below set aside. Suit decreed in favour of appellant. Respondents to bear costs throughout.

Summary: (a) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 / Muhammadan Law ----Oral gift---Proof---Burden of proof---Mutation proceedings---Scope--- A claim of oral gift by an illiterate female to her cousins, based on a mutation entry, was rejected due to failure of the donees to discharge the threefold burden of proof: (i) pleading the transaction with specific details (date, place, witnesses); (ii) producing convincing evidence of the gift, including donative intent and acceptance; and (iii) persuading the Court that the gift was voluntary, intelligent, and conscious---Respondents failed to disclose material facts in pleadings and did not lead reliable oral or documentary evidence---Entry in Roznamcha Waqiati and sanctioned mutation (No.914 dated 24.09.1974) held to be administrative in nature and not a valid proof of title---Held, mutation does not confer ownership, and authenticity of gift must be independently proved---Failure to establish elements of valid hiba rendered the transaction void ab initio. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Sarwar v. Mumtaz Bibi, 2020 SCMR 276 • Faqir Ali v. Sakina Bibi, PLD 2022 SC 85 • Atta Muhammad v. Mst. Munir Sultan, 2021 SCMR 73 • Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Rafiq, 2002 SCMR 1291 (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Arts. 59, 71---Thumbprint verification---Forensic evidence---Evidentiary value--- Where a plaintiff alleged impersonation in a mutation proceeding, the Court allowed expert forensic analysis of thumb impressions---Expert report confirmed that the thumb impression on mutation did not match that of the plaintiff---Held, expert testimony supported by comparison charts and scaled enlargements is admissible and carries high probative value---Respondents failed to rebut the scientific findings---Court held mutation No.914 was fraudulently procured---Importance of thumbprint verification in civil fraud cases reaffirmed. Cited Cases: • Mangal Sen v. Emperor, AIR 1929 Lahore 210 • Muhammad Yaqoob v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi, PLD 2020 SC 338 • Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash, AIR 1972 SC 975 (c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 24---Right to property---Fraudulent deprivation---Judicial obligation to undo injustice--- Fraudulent transfer of inherited land through impersonation and forged mutation held to violate the fundamental right to property under Art. 24---Courts below erred by giving effect to mutation without proper inquiry into fraud---Supreme Court emphasized that fraud vitiates even solemn transactions and courts must act to remedy injustice and restore rightful ownership---Held, justice demands courts pierce the veil of transactions tainted by deceit and restore legal title to rightful heirs, especially where vulnerable individuals are dispossessed. Cited Cases: • Faqir Ali v. Sakina Bibi, PLD 2022 SC 85 • Muhammad Ashraf v. Bahadur Khan, 1989 SCMR 1390 • Land Acquisition Collector, Nowshera v. Sarfaraz Khan, PLD 2001 SC 514 (d) Limitation Act, 1908 ----Arts. 95 & 120---Fraudulent mutation---Accrual of cause of action---Limitation in declaratory suits--- Plaintiff challenged a fraudulent mutation of 1974 through a civil suit in 1979 after discovering the fraud---Courts below wrongly applied Art. 95 and held suit to be time-barred---Held, Article 95 applies where the plaintiff is a party to the fraudulent act; in this case, impersonation occurred, and plaintiff was not privy to the mutation---Thus, Article 120 applied, and limitation began when denial of rights became explicit---Suit held to be within limitation period---Wrong application of limitation law reversed. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Yaqoob v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi, PLD 2020 SC 338 • Izzat v. Allah Ditta, PLD 1981 SC 165 • Gobinda Narayan Singh v. Sham Lal Singh, AIR 1931 PC 89 • Sheedi v. Muhammad Siddique, PLD 1980 Lah 477 (e) Civil Procedure & Substantive Justice ----Burden of proof---Judicial scrutiny---Role of courts--- Gift transaction lacking rational justification and contrary to familial inheritance norms was critically examined by Supreme Court---Respondents failed to show any moral, religious, or economic reason why the donor would have disinherited her daughter and husband---Courts are not barred from questioning the motives behind gifts when inheritance rights are undermined---Doctrine that fraud unravels all reiterated---Judiciary must actively prevent abuse of legal process through collusive and fabricated mutations. Cited Cases: • Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Ismail, 2002 SCMR 1938 • Raj Bibi v. Province of Punjab, 2001 SCMR 1591 • Evacuee Trust Property Board v. Mst. Sakina Bibi, 2007 SCMR 262 Disposition: Appeal allowed. Judgments and decrees of the Courts below set aside. Plaintiff’s suit decreed. Mutation No.914 declared void. Respondents to bear costs throughout.

Summary: (a) Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 ----S. 54---- Jurisdiction of Registrar—Scope and limits—Dispute regarding title to immovable property—Maintainability before Registrar under Section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925—Phrase “touching the business of the society”—Interpretation—Principle— Held, the expression “touching the business of the society” under S.54 of the Act is a jurisdictional prerequisite that determines the Registrar’s authority to entertain a dispute—The term "business" must be narrowly construed to refer only to commercial or operational activities of the society, and not matters extraneous to its authorized functions—Registrar is not empowered to adjudicate on questions of ownership or title to immovable property once such matters are the subject of civil litigation—Arbitration award rendered by Registrar, purporting to decide a title dispute without impleading affected parties and while civil court decree was in existence, held to be void and of no legal effect—Civil courts alone possess jurisdiction over matters of title, ownership, and possession of immovable property—Citing Defence Housing Authority Lahore v. Builders & Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2015 SCMR 1799 and Syed Ghulam Moin-ul-Haq Gillani v. Province of Punjab 2021 CLC 1286, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that cooperative disputes falling outside the internal affairs and core business of the society do not fall under S.54—Invocation of arbitration mechanism by petitioner was declared to be mala fide, conducted behind the back of lawful title holders, and contrary to natural justice. Cited Cases: • Defence Housing Authority Lahore v. Builders and Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2015 SCMR 1799 • Syed Ghulam Moin-ul-Haq Gillani v. Province of Punjab 2021 CLC 1286 • Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain & Ors. [1969] (1) SCR 887 (India) • The National Co-Operative Consumers' Federation Ltd. v. Delhi Administration AIR 1971 Delhi 141 (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 10A---- Due process of law—Natural justice—Non-impleadment of necessary parties in arbitration proceedings—Effect— Held, arbitration proceedings initiated under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 by the petitioner were violative of due process as neither the respondent nor his predecessor-in-interest (lawful transferees under registered instruments) were impleaded—The ex parte award adversely affected their vested property rights without affording opportunity of hearing—Violation of Art. 10A of the Constitution—Such omission was indicative of mala fides—Arbitration award and subsequent execution proceedings, including lease deed executed by Nazir, were rightly set aside by the High Court. Cited Cases: • Syed Ghulam Moin-ul-Haq Gillani v. Province of Punjab 2021 CLC 1286 • Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain [1969] (1) SCR 887 (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----S. 12(2)---- Fraudulent concealment—Effect of failing to disclose prior litigation in arbitration proceedings—Non-speaking award—Legal consequences— Held, petitioner failed to disclose existence of earlier civil litigation which culminated in a final decree against him—Award was non-speaking, made without reference to validly registered instruments or decrees passed in favor of respondent’s predecessor—Registrar exceeded jurisdiction in issuing such award—It is settled that a civil court decree cannot be nullified by parallel proceedings under a special statute—Petitioner’s conduct in securing such award without disclosing material facts or impleading lawful owners amounted to abuse of legal process—Subsequent lease deed dated 20.04.2019 executed on basis of arbitration award was declared to be of no legal effect. Cited Cases: • Syed Ghulam Moin-ul-Haq Gillani v. Province of Punjab 2021 CLC 1286 • Defence Housing Authority Lahore v. Builders & Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2015 SCMR 1799 Disposition: Petition dismissed—Leave to appeal refused—Impugned judgment of the High Court affirmed as well-reasoned and legally sound.