Summary: (Against the judgment dated 27.01.2023 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in IInd Appeal No. 132 of 2019). (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 100 & O.XVII R. 3---Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005), S. 3---Illegal dispossession---Complaint, dismissal of---Original civil jurisdiction also invoked by filing a suit---Concurrent dismissal of suit and appeals---Petitioner seeking repeated adjournments and failing to produce evidence---Closure of evidence---Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence---Petitioner filed a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which was dismissed by the district court---Subsequently, petitioner instituted a civil suit which was also dismissed by the Trial Court---The petitioner then filed appeal before the first appellate court which was also dismissed---A second appeal under section 100, C.P.C. was filed before the High Court which was also dismissed---Two forums of different jurisdiction concluded against the petitioner i.e. complaint under provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 which was dismissed followed by dismissal of suit on the original side along with first appeal and second appeal accordingly---In the present petition the petitioner attempted to take refuge under the purported misapplication of the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. by the courts below by stating that the trial court failed to record evidence of the petitioner---Held: The judgment of the trial court was passed after dismissal of the adjournment application---The application was dismissed after recording reasons that on the previous date (previous to the dismissal of last adjournment application) the petitioner also moved an adjournment application which was allowed as a last chance, despite availing earlier opportunities---On the fateful date neither the petitioner being plaintiff in the suit nor his counsel appeared but an adjournment application was sent stating that the petitioner was suffering from fever---On the same day after dismissal of the adjournment application the judgment was announced and the suit of the petitioner was dismissed being devoid of any evidence---The petitioner being aggrieved of decision under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. preferred an appeal but did not take ground that under the given circumstances Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. was misapplied---Scope of section 100, C.P.C. and that too against the concurrent findings of the original civil court and the first appellate court was limited---Supreme Court did not interfere in the concurrent findings of three courts below who had recorded the non-serious attitude of the petitioner in recording the evidence on a number of occasions, particularly when the petitioner had failed to point out if he had categorically taken this ground before the two appellate forums below---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances, and leave was refused. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XVII, R. 3---Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence---Scope---Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. is triggered when any party fails to produce evidence and the court in that eventuality may, notwithstanding such default, proceed to decide the suit forthwith. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 185(3)---Raising a new ground before the Supreme Court which was neither pleaded in first appeal nor in the second appeal---Scope---A new ground is not open for indulgence before the Supreme Court under its appellate jurisdiction when such a ground was nowhere pleaded either in the first appeal or in the second appeal. Ch. A. Rasheed, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Muhammad Aziz Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th March, 2025.

Summary: Criminal Petition No. 149-K of 2024, decided on 25th March, 2025. (Against the order dated 21.10.2024, passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Cr. Misc. Application No. 206 of 2024). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 22-A & 561-A---Powers of Justice of Peace under S.22-A, Cr.P.C.---Scope---Petition filed under S.22-A, Cr.P.C, by the petitioner for the registration of criminal case was dismissed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace---Validity---Petitioner alleged that she was subjected to mental torture and was humiliated and blackmailed by the respondents---Two Courts b elow concurrently found that the petitioner was aggrieved of the fact that she was dropped out of the class and her admission was terminated due to her performance as it was poor and not up to the mark---Two Courts below found no cognizable offence and dismissed the application of the petitioner, leaving the petitioner at liberty to avail proper remedy---Petitioner had not stated anything which could make the Supreme Court form a view other than the one already formed by the Ex-Office Justice of Peace and the High Court---Petition was accordingly dismissed. Petitioner in person. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th March, 2025.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 337-H(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Bail, dismissal of---Allegations against the petitioner-accused were that he along with 04 others while armed with weapons entered the house of complainant and committed murder of complainant's brother by making fires upon him---Undeniably, the applicant was nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role of causing firearm injury to deceased---Offence with which the applicant stood charged carried capital punishment and bail could not be granted to an accused who had been shown involved in such a heinous crime---Witnesses had categorically implicated the applicant in their respective 161, Cr.P.C statements---As far contention that the applicant was found innocent and was let-off by the Investigating Officer during investigation, however, such opinion of police was not accepted by the Magistrate and once he had been joined as an accused, the best course for him was to proceed with the trial instead of pressing for grant of bail---Even otherwise, deeper appreciation was not permissible at bail stage---From tentative assessment of material available on record, it appeared that sufficient material was available on the record, which connected the applicant with the commission of alleged offence, which entailed capital punishment---No case for bail was made out, in circumstances---Consequently, bail application was dismissed. Sohail Waqar alias Sohaila v. The State 2017 SCMR 325 2017 SCMR 325 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497---Bail---Tentative assessment---Scope---Observations made in the bail order are based on tentative assessment of the material placed on record, which should not influence the trial Court, in any manner, during the trial. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani for Applicant. Nazeer Ahmed Bhangwar, D.P.G for the State. Ali Raza Pathan for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 25th March, 2025. Order Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J .--- Through this application, applicant Aijaz Ali Banglani seeks his release on post arrest bail in Crime No. 139 of 2022, registered at P.S A-Section, Thul, for offences under Sections 302, 337-H(2), 148, 149, P.P.C. Per investigation, the applicant was arrested on 31.07.2023 and after completion of formalities the challan against him as well as others has been submitted, which is now pending for trial before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Thul (trial Court) vide Sessions Case No.212/2023, re-The State v. Gul Meer & others. The applicant filed bail plea before the Court below which was declined vide order dated 01.11.2023; hence this application has been maintained. 2. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 10.10.2022, at 10.00 p.m., the present applicant Aijaz Ahmed Banglani along with 04 others, being armed with T.T. Pistols, entered the house of complainant Sadam Hussain Banglani situated near Village Jumo Dakhan Soomro, Taluka Thul and committed murder of complainant's brother Saindad alias Sheesho by making fires upon him. Hence, such FIR was lodged by the complainant on 12.10.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that though the applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing firearm injuries to complainant's brother Saindad alias Sheesho; however, was let-of by the police during investigation and his name was placed in column No.2 of the challan Such report in terms of Section 173, Cr.P.C was filed before the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate concerned, who did not concur with the police opinion and by taking cognizance joined him as accused. He, therefore, submits that the prosecution itself has dented its own case by letting of the applicant during investigation; hence, case against him requires further enquiry. As far role attributed to the applicant is concerned, learned Counsel submits that no seat of injury has been shown in the FIR and therefore, it is yet to be determined by the trial Court at the time of trial and prays for bail. 4. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. opposes the bail application on the ground that the applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing firearm injury to deceased and the offence with which he is charged carries capital punishment, therefore, no case for bail is made out. As far the contention of learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant was let-of during investigation, learned DPG submits that police opinion is not binding upon the Courts and the offence with which the applicant has been charged is triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, this ground is not helpful for the accused at bail stage; however, it can be adjudicated at the time of trial; hence, opposes the bail application. 5. Mr. Ali Raza Pathan, learned Counsel for the complainant, by adopting the argument of learned DPG, opposes the bail application and contends that the charge has been framed; besides the complainant remains present before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing, however, the defense is not proceeding with the trial on the ground that the PWs are not in attendance. He therefore, undertakes to produce complete set of witnesses before the trial Court on the next date viz., 09.4.2025. 6. Undeniably, the applicant is nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role of causing firearm injury to deceased Saindad alias Sheesho. The offence with which the applicant stands charged carries capital punishment and bail cannot be granted to an accused who has been shown involved in such a heinous crime. The PWs have categorically implicated the applicant in their respective 161, Cr.P.C statements. As far contention that the applicant was found innocent and was let-of by the Investigating Officer during investigation; however, such opinion of police was not accepted by the Magistrate and once he has been joined as an accused, the best course for him is to proceed with the trial instead of pressing for grant of bail. Even otherwise, it is settled principle of law that deeper appreciation is not permissible at bail stage, as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Sohail Waqar Sohaila v. The State reported in 2017 SCMR 325. From tentative assessment of material available on record, it appears that sufficient material is available on the record, which connects the applicant with the commission of alleged offence, which entails capital punishment. 7. Accordingly and in view of role attributed to the applicant, in my view, no case for bail is made out. Consequently, instant bail application is hereby dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to pace up the trial proceedings and conclude the same within shortest possible time, preferably within 04 months hereof, under intimation to this Court. 8. The observation made hereinabove are based on tentative assessment of the material placed on record, which shall not influence the trial Court, in any manner, during the trial. JK/A-26/Sindh Application dismissed.

Summary: Companies Act (XIX of 2017)--- ----Ss.4, 5, 282(5) & Preamble---Stamp Act (II of 1899), S.27-A & Schedule I---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 143---Intra Court Appeal---Inconsistency in Federal and Provincial laws---Merger of companies---Transfer of assets---Stamp duty, charging of---Appellant / company was aggrieved of charging of stamp duty on transfer of assets as a result of merger of two companies under the order of High Court---Validity---Objective to enact Companies Act, 2017 was to protect interests of shareholders, creditors, stakeholders and general public by inculcating principles of good governance and safeguarding minority interests in corporate entities and providing alternate mechanism for expeditious resolution of corporate disputes as well as matters connected thereto, as was mentioned in its preamble, read with the provisions of Ss. 4 & 5 of Companies Act, 2017---Hinderance by way of imposing stamp duty and other taxes would take away companies law jurisdiction from High Court to other Provinces---Conflict of law is created only when the two, i.e. the Federation and the Province, simultaneously have authority and in such circumstances, Federal Law would prevail---Provisions of Ss. 4 & 282(5) of Companies Act, 2017 were part of Federal Law, therefore, it prevailed over the provision of Provincial Law, i.e. S. 27-A of Stamp Act, 1899---High Court directed Chief Secretary of Province of the Punjab to file a detailed report on or before the next date, explaining progress made in the meeting to resolve the matter---High Court further directed that if matter would not be resolved despite efforts of the Chief Secretary of Province of the Punjab, then the same would be decided on its own merits, after discussing legal anthropology of relevant provisions of law, i.e. the Companies Act, 2017 and Stamp Act, 1899---High Court granted interim injunction in favour of appellant / company, since vires of the judgment passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court, in case titled Jadeed Feeds Industries (Pvt.) Limited v. Board of Revenue, Punjab through Chief Inspector of Stamps and others, reported as 2024 CLD 1570 was under challenge and balance of convenience for grant of interim relief also tilted in favour of appellant / company---Interim injunction was allowed accordingly. Total Parco Pakistan Ltd. and Total Oil Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. 2023 CLD 241; Fauji Cement Company and another v. Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan and others 2022 CLD 604; Fatima Sugar Mills Limited through Company Secretary and others PLD 2015 Lah. 632; Jadeed Feeds Industries (Pvt.) Limited v. Board of Revenue, Punjab through Chief Inspector of Stamps and others 2024 CLD 1570; Faqeer Muhammad v. Messrs Natover Lease and Refinance Ltd. through DMO, Peshawar and another 2024 PTD 758; Roomi Foods (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Joint Registrar of Companies 2020 CLD 900; Ms Fazal Cloth Mills Ltd. v. Ms. Fazal Weaving Mills Ltd. 2021 CLD 182; Presson Descon International (Pvt.) Limited and others v. Joint Registrar of Companies 2020 CLD 1128 = PLD 2020 Lah. 869; Dilsons (Private) Limited and others v. Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan and another 2021 CLD 1317; Nadeem Power Generation (Pvt.) Ltd. and another 2023 CLD 652; Fauji Fertilizer Company Limited and Fauji Fertilizer Bin Qasim Limited v. Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan and another 2024 LHC 5533 and Kausar Rana Resources (Private) Limited and others v. Qatar Lubricants Company W.L.L (QALCO) and others 2025 SCMR 517 ref. Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 388; Mian Muhammad Asif v. Superintendent of Police PLD 2020 Lah. 137; Sharaf Faridi v. The Federation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Prime Minister of Pakistan PLD 1989 Kar. 404; Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1990 SCMR 1379; Province of Sindh and others v. M.Q.M. through Deputy Convener and others PLD 2014 SC 531; Walid Iqbal v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2018 Lah. 1; PIA Officers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. through President v. Province of Punjab through Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Cooperatives Department, Lahore and 4 others 2024 CLC 947 Muhammad Banaras v. Government of the Punjab and others PLJ 2024 Lah. 242; Adnan Arif v. Province of Punjab and others 2025 CLC 550; Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi and others v. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others PLD 2016 SC 808 and Abdul Latif Chaudhary v. Province of Punjab and others (Writ Petition No.1596 of 2024) ref. Barrister Talha Ilyas Sheikh, for Appellant. Barrister Raja Hashim Javed, Assistant Advocate General along with Zahid Akhtar Zaman, Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab; Engr. Aamir Khattak, Commissioner, Rawalpindi, Muhammad Junaid, Chief Inspector of Stamps and Suhail, Inspector of Stamps, Board of Revenue, Punjab. Arshad Mahmood Malik, Assistant Attorney General. Husnain Raza and Ms. Fatima Shabbir, for the SECP.

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 17, 79, 81, 82, 91 & 92---Registered gift deed, challenge to---Proof---Essential ingredients of a valid gift---Requirement of producing two attesting witnesses in evidence---Principle---Exceptions---Scope---Where execution is admitted by executor or where an attesting witness is reluctant to cooperate with the beneficiary---Not producing two attesting witnesses said to be not fatal---Predecessor-in-interest of the parties passed away in 2007---In 2012, one of the legal heirs claimed that their father had gifted him the suit property through a registered gift deed made in 2004---Authenticity of the gift was doubted by other legal heirs and it was alleged that the gift deed was fabricated without the knowledge of the deceased father or other heirs---The core question for consideration before the High Court was as to "whether a registered document produced by official witness required test to proof its execution by way of Art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and what would be the effect of essential ingredients of gift when respondents were in part possession of suit property"---Held: Petitioner (beneficiary) failed to produce any documentary evidence and call marginal witnesses, therefore, he failed to undergo the test of Art. 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Where the execution of the document is denied or disputed, it is the mandatory requirement of law of evidence i.e. Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to prove the execution of such document by way of confirmation of document through at least two witnesses who have put their signatures on the document as per the qualification of Art. 17 of Qanun- e-Shahadat, 1984---No evidence came on record about the issue of possession of the respondent (brother or sister) at the time of execution of gift by father which was essential ingredient of a gift under Muslim personal laws after the other pre- requisites i.e. offer and acceptance---After setting aside the impugned judgment and decree of the appellate court the matter was remanded to the Trial Court to give fresh decision on the point of determination about the "possession" of the petitioner at the time of execution of gift deed. Muhammad Islam v. Bagh Ali through Legal heirs RSA No. 230 of 2016 ref. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 79, 91 & 92---Dispute as to execution of a document---Proof---Requirement of producing two attesting witnesses---Principle---Departure from the principle---Scope---Where sale deed is a registered document and purchaser is in possession of disputed land on the basis thereof then non-examination of its attesting witnesses would not be fatal---Registered document has sanctity attached to it and stronger evidence is required to cast a aspersion on its genuineness. Mirza Muhammad Sharif's case 1993 SCMR 462; Manzoor Ahmed and others v. Mehrban and others 2002 SCMR 1391 and Rasool Bukhsh and others v. Muhammad Ramzan 2007 SCMR 85 rel. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 17, 79, 81, 82, 91 & 92---Registered gift deed, challenge to---Proof---Requirement of producing two attesting witnesses in evidence---Principle---Exceptions---Scope---Where execution is admitted or where an attesting witness is reluctant to cooperate with the beneficiary---Not producing two attesting witnesses said to be not fatal---Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 provides certain departures from the condition imposed by Art. 79 of the same---Firstly, the exception to the general rule is that where the execution is being admitted by the executor before the court in his pleadings or during evidence---Such exception is covered by Art. 81 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Further exceptions are also provided under Arts. 91 to 101 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---If the attesting witnesses collude with opposite party or due to some greed or avarice refuse to cooperate with the beneficiary of document, the law gives alternative way to the beneficiary of document to prove his document under Art. 82 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 which provides that "if the attesting witness denies or does not, recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence"---Therefore, a party is not required to prove document in the ordinary mode of proof and a departure from Art. 79 of ibid Order is permissible---A plenary reading of Art. 81 confirms that where the execution of a document is admitted by the executant himself, the examination of attesting witness is not necessary and a party is not under burden of proof to comply with the requirement to produce or call at least two attesting witnesses of document---Although the document is required to be attested by two witnesses but where the executant admits the execution of the document, then in terms of Art. 81 of ibid Order such document can be used against executor of document though it was required by law to be attested---The non-examination of at least two marginal witnesses would not be fatal to the case of a party due to admission by the executor of document. Abbas Ali v. Liaqat Ali and another 2013 SCMR 1600 rel. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Interference in concurrent findings---Exceptions---Such jurisdiction of the High Court is limited in relation to concurrent findings of the competent courts---The exceptions to this rule are when the findings are based on insufficient evidence; misreading of evidence; non-consideration of material evidence; patent errors of law; consideration of inadmissible evidence; abuse of jurisdiction; when the conclusions drawn are perverse and based on conjectural presumptions---The erroneous decisions of fact are ordinarily not revisable and the mere fact that the High Court may differ on a question of fact or mixed question of law and fact is not a valid ground for interfering with concurrent findings. Ameer Afzal and another v. S. Akmal through Legal heirs 2024 SCMR 1649 rel. Muhammad Asif Zai for Applicant. M. Noordin Bhatti and Ayaz Ali Rajpar, Additional Advocate General, Sindh for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th March, 2025.

Summary: It is settled principle that when a witness is declared as hostile, the trial Court must examine the totality of his evidence with great caution. The record reveals that the prosecution had requested the trial Court to declare PW-17 and PW-18 as hostile witnesses during the cross-examination of Abdul Samad Shah (PW-18) when cross-examination on the complainant (PW-17) had already been completed. A party can ask for declaring the witness as hostile, when the opposite party has not started cross examination but once cross examination starts or commence then such request could not be entertained.

Summary: Summary pending

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: Conviction solely on the basis of DNA evidence in rape case would be unconstitutional.