Summary: Background: The case involved a family dispute over the ownership and division of joint properties among four brothers. The dispute arose when the plaintiff, one of the brothers, challenged the transfer of agricultural land by his brother (acting as his attorney) to their other brother and niece. The plaintiff claimed that the transfer was unauthorized and sought a declaration, cancellation of documents, and possession of the land. The lower courts provided mixed outcomes, with the first Appellate Court ruling in favor of the defendants (brothers), but the Revision Court overturning that decision. ----Issues: 1- Whether the family settlement and the subsequent distribution of properties were legally valid. 2- Whether the plaintiff's revocation of the power of attorney before the sale deed was effective. 3- Whether the memorandum documenting the family settlement required registration and proper attestation to be legally binding. 4- Whether the legal principle preventing an agent from transferring property to close relatives without specific permission applies in the context of a family settlement. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Family Settlement Validity: The Court held that the family settlement was genuine, fair, and intended to resolve disputes among the brothers, and thus should be upheld. The settlement aimed to promote peace and harmony within the family, and the memorandum documenting the arrangement was recognized as valid. --Revocation of Power of Attorney: The Court found that the plaintiff's claim of revoking the power of attorney before the execution of the sale deed was not credible. The sale deed was executed legally, and the revocation was not timely or properly communicated. --Memorandum and Legal Formalities: The Court concluded that the memorandum of the family settlement did not require registration or attestation, as it was not a deed of transfer but merely a record of an already agreed-upon division of properties. The memorandum was treated as a family arrangement rather than a formal legal document requiring strict legal formalities. --Application of Precautionary Principle: The Court determined that the precautionary principle (requiring specific permission for an agent to transfer property to close relatives) did not apply in this case. Family settlements are governed by principles different from those applicable to transactions between strangers, and the transfer of property in this context was consistent with the family arrangement. ----Citations/Precedents: Fida Muhammad v. Pir Muhammad Khan (1985) PLD 1985 SC 34 Jamil Akhtar v. Las Baba (2003) PLD 2003 SC 494 Muhammad Ashraf v. Muhammad Malik (2008) PLD 2008 SC 389 Amina Rani v. Ashfaq Ahmad (2008) SCMR 805 Mst. Naila Kausar v. Sardar Muhammad Bakhsh (2016) SCMR 1781 Stapilton v. Stapilton (1739) All ER 352 Gordon v. Gordon (1821) 3 Swans 400 Khunni Lal v. Gobind Krithna Narain (1911) 38 Ind. App. 87 Mahomed Musa v. Aghore Kumar Ganguli (1915) 28 Ind. cas. 930 Musammat Hardei v. Bhagwan Singh (1919) 24 C.W.N. 105 Martin Cashin v. Peter J. Cashin (1938) AIR 1938 PC 103 Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Debi Singh Bhujil (1966) AIR 1966 SC 292 Atta Hussain Khan v. M. Siddiqui Jan (1979) SCMR 630 Anwar Khan v. Abdul Manaf (2004) SCMR 1261 Allah Dad v. Duhman Khan (2005) SCMR 564 Outcome: The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, setting aside the Lahore High Court’s judgment and restoring the decree granted by the first Appellate Court. The Court upheld the family settlement and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, thereby maintaining the distribution of properties as agreed upon by the brothers. The appeal was granted with costs throughout.

Summary: Background: The case revolves around a dispute over the specific performance of a sale agreement dated November 30, 2020, for a property. The Petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement, which had been extended twice due to mutual concurrence, seeking enforcement of the sale. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the Petitioner but imposed an additional payment of Rs.6,769,350/-. The Petitioner challenged this imposition, while Respondent No.3 argued that the agreement was rescinded due to the Petitioner’s failure to arrange the balance consideration of Rs.24,500,000/- by the extended deadline of February 28, 2021. -----Issues: 1- Whether the imposition of an additional compensatory amount was justified. 2- Whether the agreement stood canceled upon the alleged default and whether time was of the essence in the contract. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome ---Issue No.1: Additional Compensatory Amount The court found that the imposition of an additional payment was unjustified. Compensation should recompense a party for loss or injury caused by the other party's default. The trial court had found both the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 equally responsible for the non-performance of the agreement by February 28, 2021. Therefore, penalizing the Petitioner alone was deemed erroneous. The appellate court failed to correct this discrepancy. ---Issue No.2: Cancellation of Agreement The court concluded that time was not the essence of the contract under the given circumstances. Respondent No.3 admitted to being out of the country during the critical period when the extensions were agreed upon and the final performance date was reached. No notice of default or cancellation was issued to the Petitioner, and Respondent No.3 failed to demonstrate any intent for timely performance. Therefore, the findings of default against the Petitioner were unsustainable. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Akram, 2000 SCMR 533 Muhammad Aslam and others v. Muhammad Anwar, 2023 SCMR 1371 Mst. Samina Riffat and others v. Rohail Asghar and others, 2021 SCMR 7 Asim Jamshaid v. Shahzad Iqbal Malik and others, 2023 CLC 1100 Muhammad Jamil and others v. Muhammad Arif, 20021 SCMR 1108 Muhammad Yousaf v. Allah Ditta and others, 2021 SCMR 1241 Muhammad Abdur Rehman Qureshi v. Sagheer Ahmad, 2017 SCMR 1696 Hamood Mehmood v. Mst. Shabana Ishaque and others, 2017 SCMR 2022 Muhammad Safdar Khan and another v. Muhammad Nadeem Abbasi and another, 2021 MLD 617 Mirza Shafaat Ali Baig v. Wg. Cdr. (Rtd.) Khurshid Anwar and another, 2020 YLR 886 Muhammad Siddique and 6 others v. Abdul Aziz Ratalvi and 7 others, 2016 YLR 612

Summary: Background: The petitioner, filed a suit challenging the transfer of a plot of land, claiming he never appointed anyone as his attorney nor authorized any transfer of the property. Respondent No. 1, Tariq Daud, had filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership over the plot, alleging that the petitioner had wrongfully transferred the property. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court overturned this decision, ruling in favor of the respondent. The Peshawar High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, leading the petitioner to seek leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was granted. ----Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner appointed an attorney to transfer the property. 2. Whether the transfer of the property was authorized and valid. 3. Whether the trial court, appellate court, and revisional court made appropriate decisions based on the presented evidence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court, in its order dated 09 May 2024, allowed the petition, converted it into an appeal, and set aside the judgments of the appellate and revisional courts, thereby restoring the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The key points of the Supreme Court's reasoning were: ----Attorney Appointment and Transfer Validity: The petitioner denied ever appointing an attorney or authorizing the property transfer. However, documentary evidence, including a registered power of attorney (Exh.PW-1/1), showed the appointment of defendant No. 2 as the petitioner's attorney. The plaintiff's general denial was insufficient without specific pleadings challenging the document's authenticity. ----2. Documentary Evidence: The plaintiff himself produced the registered power of attorney as evidence, which was cross-examined and found to be genuine, containing the necessary signatures and witness attestations. The plaintiff's failure to challenge the signatures or seek a forensic comparison undermined his claims. ----3. Legal Procedure: The plaintiff should have filed a suit for the cancellation of the document under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, instead of seeking a declaration under Section 42 of the Act. The procedural misstep was critical in the Court's decision. Presumption of Validity: The Court emphasized that a registered document carries a presumption of validity. The plaintiff's inability to rebut this presumption through specific evidence and legal processes was a decisive factor. ----Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the petition, converted it into an appeal, and accepted it, thereby restoring the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The judgments and decrees of the appellate and revisional courts were set aside. The Court highlighted the importance of proper legal procedures and the presumption of validity attached to registered documents. The plaintiff's failure to provide specific evidence or pursue appropriate legal channels to challenge the power of attorney was a significant factor in the decision. ---Citations/Precedents: Mushtaq Hussain Shah v. Jewan (2007 MLD 1062) Fazal Elahi v. Noor Ahmad (PLD 2006 Lahore 318) Imran Ahmad v. District Judge (2003 CLC 1597) Muhammad Jehangir v. Muhammad Abbas (2004 CLC 538) Malik Tariq Mahmood and others v. Ghulam Ahmed and others (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 674) Hasnain Nawaz Khan v. Ghulam Akbar and another (PLD 2013 SC 489) Hafiz Muhammad Ramzan v. Muhammad Bakhsh (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 764)

Summary: '' i). Distinction between a suit for cancellation and suit for declaration. ii). Applicability of Articles 91 and 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1908") iii). Scope and import of Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1872"). iv). Agreement to sell (Exhibit-P1) which was produced in the statement of learned counsel for the "appellant" is not permissible at all.'' Background:The case involves Abdul Ghafoor (appellant) against Babar Sultan Jadoon (respondent) and three other respondents in a legal dispute concerning property transactions that stem from a power of attorney and subsequent sales agreements. Abdul Ghafoor, through a general power of attorney, authorized Babar Sultan Jadoon, who subsequently executed sale deeds of the said property in favor of his brothers (respondents No.2 & 3). Ghafoor contested these deeds and sought their cancellation, claiming misrepresentation and fraud, leading to the initial suit's dismissal by a Civil Judge, prompting the appeal to the Lahore High Court.----Issues:Validity of the sale deeds and general power of attorney based on claims of fraud and misrepresentation.Whether the plaintiff (Ghafoor) was entitled to various compensations and recoveries as outlined in his suit.Applicability of statutes from the Limitation Act concerning the timing of the suit.The legitimacy of Ghafoor's claims under specific articles of the Contract Act regarding the irrevocability of the power of attorney.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment. It was determined that:The power of attorney was legitimately executed and became irrevocable because it was coupled with an interest, confirmed by payment and agreements related to the property.The suit filed by Ghafoor was time-barred under the applicable statutes from the Limitation Act.There was overwhelming evidence supporting the respondents' execution of the sale agreements as per the authorized power of attorney.Claims of fraud and misrepresentation brought by Ghafoor were not substantiated adequately, thus affirming the legal standing of the sale deeds.----Citations/Precedents:Mst. Izzat vs. Allah Ditta (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 165)Fida Muhammad vs. Pir Muhammad Khan (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs and Others (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 341)Muhammad Ajaib vs. Mughal Hussain and 2 others (2004 YLR 690)Media Max (Pvt) Ltd. through Chief Executive vs. Army Communication Pvt. Ltd. through Chief Executive and another (PLD 2013 Sindh 555)Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi vs. Syed Rashid Arshad and others (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 212)Imam Din and 4 others vs. Bashir Ahmed and 10 others (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 418)S.K. Shah through LRs vs. Jamaluddin and others (2017 SCMR 626)Muhammad Aslam vs. Mst. Ferozi and others (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 213)Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. vs. Misri Khan (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 749)

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 39 & 42---Gift deed, cancellation of---Suit for declaration and cancellation of registered gift deed---Property in question was originally owned by the plaintiff's (respondent's) father, who gifted it to the respondent vide a gift deed and also handed over its possession---Thereafter, plaintiff raised construction on the land and also executed a power of attorney in the name of his father for administration and supervision of the property, but the father (attorney) gifted the property in question to the petitioner (defendant) vide another gift deed---Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of the registered gift deed in favour of petitioner with the plea that his father (attorney) due to his old age and cardiac issues, was not in a proper frame of mind, therefore, the gift deed in favour of petitioner was the result of connivance and disingenuousness---Validity---Property in question was gifted to the petitioner through the general attorney of plaintiff---Neither is anything reflected from the record that the general attorney obtained permission or consent from his principal for transferring the property in question by means of gift to the petitioner, nor was it ever pleaded that the earlier gift in favour of plaintiff was revoked for any reason---All the more so, the petitioner pleaded in his defense that he purchased the property in question against valuable consideration, but at the same time, he was also claiming the property as a lawful donee---Both pleas are mutually destructive if considered in juxtaposition---If it was a case of gift, then the plea of sale was misleading and erroneous, and if the property was purchased against valuable consideration, then there was no logical reason for the execution of a gift deed rather than a conveyance deed to unveil a straightforward sale transaction---As far as the proof of possession of plaintiff is concerned, it clearly transpires from the documents exhibited in the Trial Court that though the petitioner's special attorney averred that at the time of transfer of property, possession was also delivered, but subsequently, it was snatched by the plaintiff, which assertion was belied and in support of thereof, the plaintiff produced copies of Form P.T.I, and a bunch of electricity and gas bills to corroborate and substantiate the factum of possession---Petitioner filed a complaint under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against the plaintiff and his special attorney, but the Trial Court acquitted them, which was upheld by the High Court---One more important aspect that cannot be lost sight of is that plaintiff has two sons and four daughters, and seemingly, there was no rhyme or reason on record to divulge why the plaintiff deprived his own offspring, and conveyed his attorney to gift the property to the petitioner---An attorney or agent may gift the property on express permission and instructions of his principal, however in the present case nothing was presented on record through cogent evidence that the attorney ever asked for the permission or consent of his principal to gift the property in question to the petitioner; therefore, such a gift was not validated by the courts below in three concurrent judgments---Suit filed by the plaintiff had been rightly decreed--- Petition was dismissed and leave was refused. Jamil Akhtar and others v. Las Baba and others PLD 2003 SC 494; Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others v. Muhammad Malik and others PLD 2008 SC 389; Mst. Naila Kausar and another v. Sardar Muhammad Bakhsh and others 2016 SCMR 1781 and Allan Ditta and others v. Manak alias Muhammad Siddique and others 2017 SCMR 402 ref. (b) Islamic law--- ----Gift---Pre-requisites----Doner should be compos mentis, meaning thereby a person who is of sound mind and has the mental capacity to understand the legal implications of his act of making a gift, and he must be of age and also the owner of the property intended to be gifted; the thing gifted should be in existence at the time of making hiba; the thing gifted should be such that benefitting from it is lawful under the Shariah; the donor must be free from any coercion/duress or undue influence while making a gift; the thing gifted should come into the possession of the donee himself or through his representative/guardian for an effective hiba--- Under Muslim law, the constituents and components of a valid gift are tender, acceptance and possession of property---It is also obligatory that the donor divest and dissociate himself from the dominion and ownership over the property of the gift and put into words his categorical intention to convey the ownership to the donee distinctly and unambiguously with the delivery of possession of the property and ensure that donee has secured physical ascendency over the property to constitute the delivery of possession.

Summary: ''1) The standard of evidence is not uniform when challenging a registered document as compared to challenging an unregistered document. (2) A mere denial by the executant of a registered sale deed is insufficient to shift the burden onto the beneficiary to prove the valid execution of the registered document.'' ---- The appellants claimed ownership of a piece of land, alleging that the respondents obtained it fraudulently from their minor family members.The respondents, in response, contended that the property was legally transferred to them, and they denied any fraudulent activity. The dispute was initially heard by a trial court, which conducted a visual comparison of signatures on the relevant documents.In the trial court's judgment, it was found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim of fraud. The trial court relied on the principles of Muhammadan Law by Mulla and various articles of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (Q.S.O.) to establish the burden of proof and evidentiary requirements. The court cited precedents such as Ghulam Ghous v. Muhammad Yasin (2009 SCMR 70) to emphasize that fraud allegations needed to be proven and that a simple denial was not sufficient.The trial court also referred to the case of Zar Wali Shah v. Yousaf Ali Shah (1992 SCMR 1778), which supported the practice of visual comparison of signatures. This comparison did not favor the appellants' case.As a result, the trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, emphasizing that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof. The appellants appealed to the High Court, which allowed the respondents' civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.).The appellants then brought this appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Supreme Court considered various precedents, including Ahmed Hassan Khan v. Naveed Abbas (1998 SCMR 346), Mehr Manzoor Hussain v. Muhammad Nawaz (2010 SCMR 1042), Abdul Ghani v. Mst. Yasmeen Khan (2011 SCMR 837), and Yar Muhammad Khan v. Sajjad Abbas (2021 SCMR 1401) to examine the burden of proof, the shifting of that burden, and evidentiary requirements in property disputes.In the final judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower courts, emphasizing that the appellants failed to meet the requisite burden of proof. The material official witness, Muhammad Aslam, the Sub-Registrar, did not support the appellants' version, further weakening their case. The Court concluded that the respondents had established their legal ownership of the property in question.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): --- O. XXIII, R. 1 & O. XVII --- Withdrawal of Suit --- Conditional withdrawal of suit with liberty to file a fresh suit --- Jurisdiction of the trial court --- Failure to lead evidence --- Scope. Petitioners filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of documents, and permanent injunction before the Senior Civil Judge-III, Khairpur, in 2017. Issues were framed on 31.05.2018, but the plaintiffs failed to lead evidence. On 02.09.2019, plaintiffs sought withdrawal of the suit, conditioned upon filing a fresh suit due to technical defects. The trial court permitted withdrawal but declined permission to file a fresh suit, citing delay and failure to produce evidence. The petitioners challenged this order in Civil Revision Application No. 43/2019, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge-III, Khairpur, on 10.06.2022, upholding the trial court’s decision. Held, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to permit withdrawal while simultaneously denying permission to file a fresh suit. If the court disagreed with the condition, it should have either rejected the withdrawal request or accepted it entirely, instead of adopting a paradoxical approach. The failure of plaintiffs to lead evidence did not justify disposing of the suit in such a manner, as O. XVII, C.P.C. requires the court to either decree or dismiss the suit on the basis of the available material. The revisional court also erred in failing to recognize the trial court’s jurisdictional defect. Further held, that the trial court’s approach violated O. XXIII, R. 1, C.P.C., which governs withdrawal of suits. The petitioners’ right to file a fresh suit could not be denied arbitrarily. The case was remanded to the trial court with directions to either allow withdrawal of the suit unconditionally or proceed with the case as per law. Petitioners were granted the opportunity to introduce additional grounds for withdrawal if desired. ----Disposition: Petition allowed. Orders dated 02.09.2019 and 10.06.2022 set aside. Case remanded to the Senior Civil Judge-III, Khairpur, for reconsideration in accordance with O. XXIII, R. 1, C.P.C..

Summary: Background:Sara Akhtar, formerly Sara Ghouri, filed a suit in 2009 seeking declaration and cancellation of six sale mutations dated January 16, 1989, pertaining to 977 kanals and 19 marlas of land. These mutations were in favor of Mehmood Khan and others, including Mansoor Ahmed Khan's sons and other relatives. The suit was decreed on June 28, 2019, and subsequent appeals by the petitioners were dismissed, culminating in the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, on March 10, 2021.---Issues:Whether the suit was filed within the prescribed time limit and if the possession of the subject land was sought.Whether the burden of proof lay upon the petitioner-respondent and if fraud was established.Whether factual errors were committed by the courts in their decisions.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The burden of establishing the validity of the sale mutations rested with the petitioners, who failed to discharge it. The High Court found that their failure amounted to fraud. The respondent, Sara Akhtar, denied knowledge of the sale mutations and argued that the burden of proof lay with the petitioners, in line with Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Additionally, constructive possession of the land was claimed by the respondent through her maternal uncle. Only one beneficiary of the purported sale testified, and his credibility was questioned due to his age at the time of the sale. The High Court found no illegality in its judgment and dismissed the petition, directing the revenue authorities to ensure the immediate delivery of land possession to the respondent.---Citations/Precedents:Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.----Quote:Substantial costs imposed, as frivolous litigation deprived a woman of her land for 14 years.

Summary: The petitioner entered into an agreement to sell some developed and undeveloped land of the scheme to the respondent for a consideration of Rs.94 crore. The agreement specified payment terms, including a 1/4th amount upfront and the remaining in six equal installments. However, the respondent failed to deposit the remaining amount as directed by the court. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application claiming a compromise between the parties, and a partial payment was made. The petitioner initiated a suit for cancellation of documents, and after the failure of the compromise, the trial court ordered the respondent to deposit the remaining amount. Meanwhile, the respondent filed an execution petition seeking the transfer of 30 acres of land based on earlier orders. The executing court directed the petitioner to transfer the land in response to a received amount of Rs.9 crores. The court observed that the orders sought to be executed relate to the vacation of stay orders regarding certain patches of land and do not constitute executable orders. The court sets aside the impugned order and dismissed the execution petition, deeming it not maintainable.

Summary: Background:Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 filed a Suit for Cancellation of a registered waqfnama dated 18.10.2003, alleging forgery and fictitious representation during its execution. The waqfnama purportedly transferred property from Mst. Hameeda Bano to Defendant No.1 (the Appellant), with Defendants No.2 to 4, also heirs of Mst. Hameeda Bano, supporting its validity. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court dismissed the Suit, but the Lahore High Court reversed the decision, prompting the present Civil Appeal.---Issues:Whether the Suit was time-barred.Whether the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 paid the appropriate court fees.Whether the waqfnama was valid or forged.Whether the Suit was maintainable under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.Whether the objections regarding the certification by the Sub-Registrar were valid.Whether the Suit was within the statute of limitations.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court found that the Suit was indeed time-barred, as it was filed two years after the death of Mst. Hameeda Bano, the alleged transferor of the property.Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 failed to pay the appropriate court fees, rendering the Civil Revision liable for dismissal.The Court held that the waqfnama was valid, as Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove its forgery or fictitious nature.The Suit was deemed maintainable under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, as it involved a challenge to the validity of an instrument.The objections regarding certification by the Sub-Registrar were dismissed, as both documents contained the necessary certification.The Suit was found to be within the statute of limitations, as it was filed within three years of the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1's knowledge of the alleged forgery.---Citations/Precedents:Allah Yar v. Muhammad Riaz and others (PLD 1981 SC 489)Mst. Kaniz Begum and others v. Mst. Akbar Jan and another (1984 SCMR 1493)