Summary: Sections 8, 42, 54 Specific Relief Act, 1877. Burden to prove bonafide purchaser---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 8, 42 & 54---Suit for possession, declaration and injunction---Plaintiff who claimedownership of land in question had contended that possession of the defendants over the saidland was unauthorized and illegal---Existence of entry in Revenue Record in favour of theplaintiff, was not denied by either of the parties---Suit-land existing in the name of plaintiff,which initially had proved case of the plaintiff, and burden, therefore, shifted on thedefendants to establish existence of a legal title in respect of land in question in their favour---Defendants claimed their right in respect of land in question adverse to the plaintiff, with theplea that they had purchased said land from the owners thereof and were occupying the samein their own right---Defendants, on the first instance had to establish a legal transactioneffected between them and previous owners from whom the defendants had allegedlypurchased the suit-land---To establish themselves to be bona fide purchasers of the land inquestion, the defendants had not placed on record any title deed in favour of said vendors---Defendants had pleaded that said vendors were recorded owners in Revenue Record, but thedefendants had failed to produce any entry made in favour of the vendors---Agreementswhich were produced by the defendants, were of less help to them---No other title deed wasproduced by the defendants, which could establish that they had any title in respect of suit-land, which could legally pass on to them on the basis of sale transaction as asserted by thedefendants---Mere possession of defendants over suit-land, would not prove the existence ofa legal title in favour of them---Relevant entry in Revenue Record existed in favour of theplaintiff coupled with the fact that there was no denial of title of the plaintiff on the part ofthe defendants, which established that the defendants were in full knowledge and hadrecognized the title of the plaintiff over the suit-land---Defendants could not be allowed totake a contrary stand---Defendants had failed to establish their contention---No instances ofmisappreciation and non-appreciation of evidence and material by the courts below wereestablished, which needed interference by High Court in revision petition---Petition wasdismissed.Mst. Amina Bibi v. Mudassar Aziz PLD 2003 SC 430; Zarshad through legal heirs v. ShahGul PLD 2003 SC 650; Sher Baz Khan v. Mst Malkani Sahibzadi Tiwana PLD 2003 SC849; Messrs Basf Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Tanocraft Limited PLD 2003 Kar. 598;Habib Khan v. Mst. Bakhtmina 2004 SCMR 1668; Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department N.-W.F.F. Peshawar v. Mazhar Hussain PLD 2004 SC 682; Ansar Mehmood v. Allah Bakhsh2005 YLR 34; Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Leasing Ltd. v. Haq Knitwear (Pvt.) Ltd.PLD 2009 Lah. 52; Mst. Rasheeda Begum v. Mst Saeeda 1993 CLC 1236 and 2003 CLC 660distinguished.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: The case involves a dispute over the cancellation of provisional admission by an educational institution and the termination of services by a humanitarian organization. In the first case, the petitioner's admission to a degree program was revoked by the institute after he failed to meet the minimum eligibility criteria based on his Intermediate Examination results. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that the cancellation was unjust. In the second case, the petitioner's services were terminated by the Red Crescent Society, prompting him to seek gratuity and pensionary benefits. The petitioner contended that the society's actions were arbitrary and sought relief from the court. ----Issues: Whether the cancellation of provisional admission by the educational institution was justified. Whether the termination of services by the humanitarian organization was lawful. Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions against the Red Crescent Society. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court in the first case held that the cancellation of provisional admission was justified because the petitioner failed to meet the minimum eligibility criteria. Provisional admission was contingent upon achieving a certain percentage of marks in the Intermediate Examination, which the petitioner did not fulfill. The court emphasized the importance of upholding merit and transparency in educational institutions and dismissed the petitioner's claim. In the second case, the court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the Red Crescent Society. Despite being a statutory body, the society's functions were primarily humanitarian and charitable, rather than directly related to governmental affairs. Therefore, the court dismissed the petitioner's claim, citing precedents that established the status of the society as an independent entity. The outcome of both cases favored the respondents, with the courts dismissing the petitions brought by the respective petitioners. ----Citations/Precedents: Chairman, Selection Committee/Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore v. Wasif Zamir Ahmad and another (1997 SCMR 15) Muhammad Rafique and another v. Director Inservice Agriculture Training Institute and another (2007 CLC 1492) Umar Najeeb Khan Lodhi v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and 4 others (2010 MLD 380) Zia Ullah Khan Niazi v. Chairman, Pakistan Red Crescent Society (2004 SCMR 189) Pakistan Red Crescent Society v. Syed Nazir Gillani (PLD 2005 SC 806) Pakistan Red Crescent Society v. Zia Ullah Khan Niazi (2011 SCMR 1901)

Summary: S.42 SRA,S.12(2) CPC:Declaratory suit,notice giving to defendants done in surreptitious manner,no efficacious decree could be passed