Summary: Service matters (Back benefits)

Summary: [A registered deed reflecting transfer of certain rights qua a property though will have sanctity attached to it regarding its genuineness, and a stronger evidence would be required to cast aspersions on its correctness but cannot be given preference over an unregistered deed vide which physical possession of the property has also been given] The dispute between the parties revolved around a house that was initially transferred by Muhammad Irfan to Respondent No.1, his wife, through an unregistered sale/dower deed dated, along with possession of the house. Subsequently, Muhammad Irfan transferred the house to his two sons, the petitioners, through a registered gift deed dated 2.10.1998. Respondent No.1 filed a suit questioning the genuineness of the registered gift deed and claiming that the house was transferred to her through the unregistered sale/transfer deed. During the proceedings, Respondent No.1 provided evidence to support her claim of receiving the house through the unregistered deed, including the testimony of witnesses and a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory confirming Muhammad Irfan's signatures on the deed. The petitioners failed to refute the evidence presented by Respondent No.1. The court considered the issue of whether the unregistered sale/dower deed could take precedence over the registered gift deed. The court cited Section 50(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, which states that a registered document regarding the transfer of rights in an immovable property will have effect against every unregistered document relating to the same property and conferring the same rights, but with exceptions. In this case, since Respondent No.1 had possession of the property based on the unregistered deed, her rights were protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court referred to previous cases to support this interpretation. The court concluded that despite the registered gift deed in favor of the petitioners, which was subsequent in time, they had no possession of the property and could not claim any advantage from it. The transfer to the petitioners was deemed invalid because Muhammad Irfan had already transferred the property to Respondent No.1, leaving nothing to transfer to anyone else. The petitioners failed to prove the essential elements of a valid gift, and their claim was dismissed. The court held that the findings of the lower courts were legal and free from irregularities, and thus there was no basis for the Supreme Court to interfere. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Summary: [A registered deed reflecting transfer of certain rights qua a property though will have sanctity attached to it regarding its genuineness, and a stronger evidence would be required to cast aspersions on its correctness but cannot be given preference over an unregistered deed vide which physical possession of the property has also been given] The dispute between the parties revolved around a house that was initially transferred by Muhammad Irfan to Respondent No.1, his wife, through an unregistered sale/dower deed dated, along with possession of the house. Subsequently, Muhammad Irfan transferred the house to his two sons, the petitioners, through a registered gift deed dated 2.10.1998. Respondent No.1 filed a suit questioning the genuineness of the registered gift deed and claiming that the house was transferred to her through the unregistered sale/transfer deed. During the proceedings, Respondent No.1 provided evidence to support her claim of receiving the house through the unregistered deed, including the testimony of witnesses and a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory confirming Muhammad Irfan's signatures on the deed. The petitioners failed to refute the evidence presented by Respondent No.1. The court considered the issue of whether the unregistered sale/dower deed could take precedence over the registered gift deed. The court cited Section 50(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, which states that a registered document regarding the transfer of rights in an immovable property will have effect against every unregistered document relating to the same property and conferring the same rights, but with exceptions. In this case, since Respondent No.1 had possession of the property based on the unregistered deed, her rights were protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court referred to previous cases to support this interpretation. The court concluded that despite the registered gift deed in favor of the petitioners, which was subsequent in time, they had no possession of the property and could not claim any advantage from it. The transfer to the petitioners was deemed invalid because Muhammad Irfan had already transferred the property to Respondent No.1, leaving nothing to transfer to anyone else. The petitioners failed to prove the essential elements of a valid gift, and their claim was dismissed. The court held that the findings of the lower courts were legal and free from irregularities, and thus there was no basis for the Supreme Court to interfere. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Summary: [A registered deed reflecting transfer of certain rights qua a property though will have sanctity attached to it regarding its genuineness, and a stronger evidence would be required to cast aspersions on its correctness but cannot be given preference over an unregistered deed vide which physical possession of the property has also been given] The dispute between the parties revolved around a house that was initially transferred by Muhammad Irfan to Respondent No.1, his wife, through an unregistered sale/dower deed dated, along with possession of the house. Subsequently, Muhammad Irfan transferred the house to his two sons, the petitioners, through a registered gift deed dated 2.10.1998. Respondent No.1 filed a suit questioning the genuineness of the registered gift deed and claiming that the house was transferred to her through the unregistered sale/transfer deed. During the proceedings, Respondent No.1 provided evidence to support her claim of receiving the house through the unregistered deed, including the testimony of witnesses and a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory confirming Muhammad Irfan's signatures on the deed. The petitioners failed to refute the evidence presented by Respondent No.1. The court considered the issue of whether the unregistered sale/dower deed could take precedence over the registered gift deed. The court cited Section 50(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, which states that a registered document regarding the transfer of rights in an immovable property will have effect against every unregistered document relating to the same property and conferring the same rights, but with exceptions. In this case, since Respondent No.1 had possession of the property based on the unregistered deed, her rights were protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court referred to previous cases to support this interpretation. The court concluded that despite the registered gift deed in favor of the petitioners, which was subsequent in time, they had no possession of the property and could not claim any advantage from it. The transfer to the petitioners was deemed invalid because Muhammad Irfan had already transferred the property to Respondent No.1, leaving nothing to transfer to anyone else. The petitioners failed to prove the essential elements of a valid gift, and their claim was dismissed. The court held that the findings of the lower courts were legal and free from irregularities, and thus there was no basis for the Supreme Court to interfere. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Summary: A registered deed reflecting transfer of certain rights qua a property though will have sanctity attached to it regarding its genuineness, and a stronger evidence would be required to cast aspersions on its correctness but cannot be given preference over an unregistered deed vide which physical possession of the property has also been given----The case revolved around the transfer of a house initially from Muhammad Irfan to Mst. Zenat-un-Nisa through an unregistered sale/dower deed dated 15.02.1987, and later to the petitioners through a registered gift deed dated 2.10.1998. The court found that although the registered gift deed favored the petitioners, the unregistered sale/dower deed held precedence due to the physical possession of the property being transferred along with it. The court cited Section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908, which provides that an unregistered document conferring rights in immovable property, along with possession, takes precedence over a registered document. The court referenced legal precedents, including the cases of Fazla Vs. Mehr Dina (1999 SCMR 837) and Mushtaq Ahmad and others Vs. Muhammad Saeed and others (2004 SCMR 530), to support its decision. It also emphasized that the petitioners failed to establish the essential elements of a gift, namely offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession. Ultimately, the court concluded that the transfer to the petitioners via the registered gift deed was illegal and void since Muhammad Irfan had no legal right to transfer the property after the earlier transfer to Mst. Zenat-un-Nisa. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Summary: The tax exemption granted in the year 2010 under Clause 126F of Part I of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to the taxpayers of certain areas of the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, FATA and PATA, whose business suffered on account of internal strife, could only have been intended for the taxpayers falling under the domain of ?normal tax regime? whose profitability while doing business in the affected areas had diminished in the past on account of an external factor i.e. political strife that affected the profitability of doing business there. The exemption was never meant for the taxpayers like the petitioners whose businesses fall within the domain of ?final tax regime? for whom the question of experiencing loss of business opportunity on account of internal strife does not arise. They made their presence in the affected area only when they had in their hands a business opportunity to make profits and gains in the form of contracts to be executed there----In June 2010, the government of Pakistan invoked Section 53 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to grant tax relief to taxpayers in certain areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, FATA, and PATA, whose businesses suffered due to internal strife. This relief was provided through exemptions listed in the Second Schedule of the Ordinance, particularly through Clause 126F, which exempted profits and gains derived by taxpayers in the affected areas for three years starting from 2010.Several companies, including private and public limited ones, with business operations in Lahore or Multan and deriving income from construction contracts, sought refunds for taxes deducted from payments made towards fulfilling contracts in affected areas. They believed they were entitled to exemptions under Clause 126F.However, the Additional Commissioner of Inland Revenue disallowed the exemption, arguing that companies operating under the 'final tax regime' were not intended beneficiaries of Clause 126F. The matter escalated through appeals and references to higher authorities and courts.The court held that Clause 126F was meant for taxpayers under the 'normal tax regime' who suffered financial losses due to adverse business conditions in affected areas. It clarified that companies under the 'final tax regime' did not face such circumstances since they only entered affected areas upon securing contracts, without being affected by prior adverse conditions.The court emphasized that the intent of the exemption was to aid businesses directly impacted by adverse conditions, not those entering affected areas for profit opportunities. Commissioner of Income Tax Peshawar Vs. Islamic Investment Bank (2016 SCMR 816): This case likely deals with income tax matters and may have provided relevant legal interpretations regarding tax liabilities and exemptions.Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 Supreme Court 582): This case appears to involve a dispute between Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and the Federation of Pakistan, possibly concerning legal or regulatory issues within the textile or manufacturing industry.Commissioner of Income Tax Legal Division Vs. Khurshid Ahmad (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 545): This case probably deals with tax matters, specifically regarding legal interpretations of tax laws or disputes related to tax liabilities.Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Federation of Pakistan (NLR 1992 Tax 186): This case likely involves Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. and the Federation of Pakistan, possibly concerning tax-related issues within the sugar industry.Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitions, concluding that the exemption under Clause 126F was not applicable to taxpayers under the 'final tax regime', and directed the income tax department to recover wrongly refunded amounts.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a civil appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court, which allowed the respondent's application for an amendment to the plaint. The respondent had initially filed a suit for specific performance of a contract related to the purchase of two plots and a perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the case, the respondent sought to amend the plaint to include a claim for possession, alleging that the appellant had forcibly taken possession of the disputed plots during the litigation. The trial court rejected this application, but the High Court, upon revision, allowed the amendment. -----Issues: 1- Whether the amendment to the plaint, allowing the inclusion of a claim for possession, would change the nature of the original suit. -----2- Whether the High Court properly applied the legal provisions regarding amendments to pleadings. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision to allow the amendment. The Court reasoned that: The amendment did not change the nature or cause of action of the suit. It was a necessary step to ensure the real controversy between the parties was properly adjudicated. The amendment simply added a claim for possession of the plots, which pertained to the same land under dispute, and was based on the same contract. According to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), amendments can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings if they are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. The High Court correctly interpreted the law and allowed the amendment, ensuring the case could be justly resolved without changing its nature. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Anwar Begum and another v. Mazhar Hussain and another [PLJ 2000 SC (AJ&K) 237] Muhammad Akram and 2 others v. Muhammad Ashraf and 5 others [1997 SCR 315] Mst. Ghulam Bibi v. Sarsa Khan [PLD 1985 SC 345]

Summary: Background: The case involves a dispute over the ownership and possession of land in Sarthala, Tehsil Dudyal, District Mirpur. The appellants filed a suit for declaration, seeking possession of land they claimed as their own, alleging that the respondents had taken possession as tenants without legal justification. The respondents countered with a cross-suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated March 14, 1951, asserting that they had purchased the disputed land for Rs. 900/- and were in possession since then. Both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suits filed by both parties. However, on appeal, the High Court accepted the respondents' claim and ordered specific performance of the agreement. The appellants filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, challenging the High Court’s decision. -----Issues: 1- Specific Performance of Sale Agreement: Whether the High Court was correct in granting a decree for specific performance based on the agreement dated March 14, 1951. ----2- Abatement of Appeal Due to Death of a Party: Whether the appeal survives despite the death of one of the appellants, Punnu Khan, given that his legal heirs were not impleaded within the limitation period. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Specific Performance of Sale Agreement: The High Court granted specific performance of the sale agreement in favor of the respondents, holding that the respondents had purchased the land through an oral agreement in 1951 and had taken possession accordingly. The appellants argued that the agreement was not properly executed and was time-barred, but the High Court found the agreement to be valid and enforceable based on the evidence presented. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's findings on the specific performance claim. --Abatement of Appeal Due to Death of a Party: During the pendency of the appeal, one of the appellants, Punnu Khan, passed away. His legal heirs failed to join the proceedings within the prescribed limitation period. The Court ruled that due to the non-substitution of Punnu Khan’s legal heirs, the appeal abated in toto (entirely) as the decree was passed solely against him. The appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground, without delving into the merits of the case. The appeal was ultimately dismissed due to abatement caused by the non-impleadment of Punnu Khan’s legal heirs. The decree for specific performance of the agreement in favor of the respondents remained undisturbed. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1966 SC 505 PLD 1994 SC 162 Mst. Aziza Begum v. Muhammad Hussain Khan (2013 SCR 563) Zaffar alias Mumtaz v. Sajjad Begum (Civil Appeal No. 45/2008)

Summary: Background: The landowners’ property was acquired by the Collector under the Mangla Dam Raising Project through Award No. 118/2007. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the landowners filed reference applications before the Collector, which were forwarded to the Reference Judge, Mirpur. The Reference Judge enhanced the compensation, and this increase was further upheld by the High Court. Both WAPDA and the landowners appealed to the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, which disposed of the appeals through a consolidated judgment. WAPDA subsequently filed review petitions, arguing that the compensation calculation was incorrect and that relevant sale deeds had not been considered. -----Issues: 1- Error in Compensation Calculation: Whether the compensation awarded to the landowners was incorrectly calculated based on the sale deeds relied upon. -----2- Consideration of Additional Sale Deeds: Whether the Court failed to consider certain sale deeds registered before the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, impacting the compensation assessment. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Error in Compensation Calculation: The Court identified an error in calculating the average price of the land. The original judgment cited the average price as Rs. 32,52,000 per kanal, whereas the correct average, based on three sale deeds (Exhibits PD, PE, and PF), was found to be Rs. 24,31,111 per kanal. As a result, the Court revised the compensation to reflect the correct amount of Rs. 24,31,111 per kanal. --Consideration of Additional Sale Deeds: The Court noted that the argument regarding other sale deeds, registered before the notification under Section 4, was not raised during the original proceedings. Since these deeds were not part of the record, the Court refused to consider them at the review stage. The review petition was allowed to the extent of correcting the compensation calculation. The judgment was amended to reflect the revised compensation, and the petition was otherwise dismissed. There was no order as to costs. -----Citations/Precedents: Award No. 118/2007 (Mangla Dam Raising Project) Land Acquisition Act, Section 4 (Notification of acquisition)

Summary: Summary pending