Summary: (a) Muhammadan Law----Hiba---Oral gift---Essential ingredients---Burden of proof---Exclusion of female heirs from inheritance---Where beneficiaries relied upon an alleged oral gift to exclude widow and daughters of deceased from inherited property, burden rested squarely upon beneficiaries to prove transaction through cogent and reliable evidence---Valid gift required proof of declaration by donor, acceptance by donee and delivery of possession---Beneficiary was required to prove gift itself and not merely mutation recording it---Courts were bound to scrutinize alleged gift with particular care where its effect was to bypass or artificially block inheritance rights of female heirs. Cited Cases: • Faqir Ali and others v. Sakina Bibi and others PLD 2022 SC 85 • Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Ismail 2002 SCMR 1938 • Muhammad Sarwar v. Mumtaz Bibi and others 2020 SCMR 276 (b) Muhammadan Law----Hiba by female heirs of inherited property---Knowledge and voluntary relinquishment---Proof---Inheritance rights of widow and daughters had already vested by operation of law upon death of predecessor---Beneficiaries of alleged gift were required to prove not only declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession but also that female heirs fully understood nature, extent and consequences of transaction and consciously and voluntarily elected to abandon their vested proprietary rights---No evidence established that female heirs had been apprised that alleged gift would permanently divest them of inherited estate---Transaction was in favour of male heirs who directly benefited from exclusion of women and therefore demanded closest judicial scrutiny---Mere mutation entry or long possession could not substitute proof of knowing and voluntary relinquishment. (c) Revenue record----Mutation---Evidentiary value---Oral gift---Mutation was maintained primarily for fiscal purposes and neither created nor extinguished title---Where ownership was claimed through oral gift, title flowed from gift itself and not from revenue entry recording it---Mutation could at most corroborate a transaction independently proved but could not establish declaration, acceptance or delivery of possession---Courts below committed error of law by treating Gift Mutation No.75 as substantive proof of title. Cited Cases: • Ghulam Sarwar deceased through LRs and others v. Ghulam Sakina 2019 SCMR 567 • Mst. Ramzanu Bibi v. Ibrahim deceased through LRs and others 2025 SCMR 955 • Noor Ud Din deceased through LRs v. Pervaiz Akhtar and others 2023 SCMR 1928 • Mst. Barikhna and others v. Faiz Ullah Khan and others 2020 SCMR 1618 • Zohra Bibi and another v. Haji Sultan Mahmood and others 2018 SCMR 762 • Khan Muhammad through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Khatoon Bibi and others 2017 SCMR 1476 • Muhammad Munir v. Muhammad Saleem and others 2004 SCMR 1530 • Muhammad Younus Khan and 12 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others 1993 SCMR 618 • Noor Ahmad and 20 others v. Mst. Zeba and 12 others 1991 SCMR 1990 (d) Muhammadan Law----Oral gift---Subsequent consolidation proceedings, private partition and later revenue transactions---Evidentiary effect---Real controversy was whether valid oral gift had taken place in year 1955---Consolidation proceedings of 1968, preparation of Wanda Jaat, private arrangements amongst alleged donees and subsequent dealings could not relieve beneficiaries of burden to prove original transaction---Events occurring years later were incapable of retrospectively proving declaration, acceptance or delivery of possession at time of alleged gift. (e) Evidence---Oral gift---Witness not present at mutation proceedings---Hearsay testimony---Witness relied upon by beneficiaries was neither present before Revenue Officer at attestation of gift mutation nor participant in proceedings and could not identify persons who appeared or circumstances in which mutation was sanctioned---His testimony represented only what he subsequently learnt and was not evidence of transaction itself---Such testimony could not establish essential ingredients of valid gift. (f) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)----Knowledge of mutation---Proof of underlying transaction---Distinct questions---Knowledge of revenue mutation might be relevant to limitation but did not prove transaction entered therein---Even if female heirs knew of mutation years earlier, such knowledge did not dispense with beneficiaries’ obligation to independently prove valid gift---Courts below erred by conflating knowledge of mutation with proof of oral gift. (g) Muhammadan Law----Oral gift---Continued payment of share in produce to female heirs---Effect---Evidence indicated that female heirs continued to receive hissa batai from land after alleged gift---Such conduct cast doubt upon claim that they had completely and irrevocably divested themselves of all proprietary rights---Continued recognition of their entitlement in produce was inconsistent with assertion of absolute gift in favour of male heirs and was material evidence ignored by Courts below. (h) Muhammadan Law----Hiba---Delivery of possession---Co-heir already in possession---Proof---Delivery of possession was indispensable ingredient of valid gift---No witness identified act, date or manner by which donors allegedly relinquished dominion and delivered possession to donees---Male heirs were already cultivating property as co-heirs and their continued possession was not necessarily referable to alleged gift---Possession already held in capacity of heir could not, without independent evidence, establish delivery of possession pursuant to gift. (i) Muslim inheritance----Co-heirs---Possession of one heir---Constructive possession of all heirs---Possession of one co-heir was ordinarily deemed possession on behalf of all heirs unless rights of others were clearly and unequivocally repudiated---Exclusive physical possession by brothers did not by itself extinguish inheritance rights of sisters---Doctrines of waiver, estoppel, relinquishment and adverse possession generally did not operate amongst co-heirs in absence of express repudiation brought to their knowledge. Cited Cases: • Ghulam Ali and others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 • Abrar Hussain v. Mst. Bibi Shahida and others PLD 2026 SC 42 (j) Muslim inheritance----Female heirs---Protection of vested inheritance rights---Public policy---Inheritance rights vested immediately upon death of predecessor and were neither bounty of male relatives nor concession dependent upon family custom, convenience or goodwill---Purported relinquishment by women required extreme caution because female heirs were frequently deprived through fabricated gifts, manipulated revenue entries, coercive arrangements and fraudulent documentation---Courts were duty-bound to protect inheritance rights of women and prevent procedural technicalities from perpetuating deprivation. Cited Cases: • Mirza Abid Baig v. Zahid Sabir deceased through legal representatives and others 2020 SCMR 601 • Mst. Aksar Jan and others v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others 2025 SCMR 88 • Tanvir Sarfraz Khan v. Federation of Pakistan 2025 SCMR 98 • Ghulam Ali and others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 (k) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)----Inheritance rights---Old mutation---Subsequent exchange and gift transactions---Fresh assertions of exclusive title---Limitation could not be examined in isolation from nature of right and validity of transaction forming foundation of title---Before relying upon delay, Court was required first to determine whether alleged gift had been proved---Subsequent exchange and gift transactions founded upon disputed mutation constituted independent assertions of exclusive ownership and furnished fresh causes for judicial scrutiny---Claim could not be dismissed merely by counting years from original mutation while ignoring failure to establish foundational gift. Cited Case: • Haji Muhammad Yunis deceased through legal heirs v. Mst. Farukh Sultan and others 2022 SCMR 1282 (l) Constitution of Pakistan----Arts.2-A, 23, 24, 25, 35 & 227---Inheritance rights of women---Equality, property and Islamic injunctions---Constitution did not permit deprivation of women from lawful inheritance---Equality before law and protection of property would become illusory if rights vested through succession could be defeated by coercion, fraud, social pressure, manipulated revenue entries or dubious family arrangements---State, Courts and revenue authorities bore positive obligation to ensure that female heirs obtained, retained and enjoyed inheritance in practical and effective manner---Any custom, practice, arrangement or device excluding female heir from lawful share offended injunctions of Islam and constitutional commitments to equality, dignity, social justice and property rights. (m) Courts and revenue authorities---Inheritance disputes involving women---Duty of heightened scrutiny---Law leaned in favour of protecting rather than defeating inheritance rights of women and vulnerable members of society---Every transaction having effect of excluding female heir from succession was required to be examined with utmost care, caution and judicial scrutiny---Courts could not permit artificial devices, dubious gifts, manipulated entries or prolonged litigation to defeat Divine and statutory scheme of inheritance. (n) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.185(3)---Concurrent findings---Misreading and non-reading of evidence---Interference by Supreme Court---Concurrent findings ordinarily commanded respect but lost sanctity where founded upon misconception of law, misreading or non-reading of material evidence---Courts below failed to require proof of gift independent of mutation, ignored legal character of possession amongst co-heirs, overlooked continued payment of produce to female heirs and treated delay and revenue entries as substitutes for proof---Such findings were infected by misapplication of settled legal principles and warranted interference. Cited Cases: • Habib Ur Rehman and others v. Abdul Karim deceased through L.Rs. and others 2025 SCMR 1262 • United Bank Limited through its President and others v. Jamil Ahmed and others 2024 SCMR 164 • Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others 2014 SCMR 914 • Abdul Hameed and others v. Khalid and others 2007 SCMR 938 • Mst. Saadat Sultan and others v. Muhammad Zahur Khan and others 2006 SCMR 193 • Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Ferozi and others PLD 2001 SC 213 • Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700 Disposition---Petition for leave to appeal converted into appeal and allowed---Judgments and decrees of Trial Court, Appellate Court and High Court set aside---Gift Mutation No.75 dated 17.04.1955 and all subsequent transactions founded thereon declared illegal, void and ineffective against inheritance rights of petitioners---Petitioners declared entitled to their respective shares in estate of Roshan son of Bora according to applicable law of inheritance---Revenue authorities directed to make consequential corrections and determine and separate shares in accordance with law---No order as to costs. Noor Muhammad and others v. Ghulam Haider and others, C.P.L.A. No.1103-L of 2016, Supreme Court of Pakistan, heard on 04.06.2026 and announced on 30.06.2026, approved for reporting.

Summary: (a) Muslim Personal Law (Hiba / Oral Gift) ----Oral gift—Proof and effect—Competing subsequent registered gift—Held, the plaintiff established a valid oral gift of 50% of the suit property (oral hiba dated 05-01-1984; declaration/confirmation dated 21-05-1986) through his testimony and supporting witnesses, as well as contemporaneous official correspondence and mutation—Once such earlier gift stood proved and the mutation was duly recorded, the donor (R-1) had no subsisting title in that share to gift it later to his wife—Subsequent registered gift (1989) to R-2, made while the earlier mutation in plaintiff’s favour subsisted, could not override the prior hiba to the extent of the already-gifted share. (b) Evidence Act / Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Arts. 102 & 103—Attesting/hostile witness—Weight of testimony—A witness (PW-4) who turned hostile did not dispute his signature on the declaration confirming the oral gift; having admitted the signature, he could not “blow hot and cold”—His later denial of having witnessed the gift carried little value against the admitted signature and surrounding documentary proof—Status as employee of a party, by itself, does not disqualify a witness; credibility is assessed on cross-examination and congruence with other evidence—On the record as a whole, the plaintiff’s witnesses were confidence-inspiring. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----O. XVI, R. 3—Court/official witnesses—Production of originals—Official from the Military Estate Office (MEO) produced the original declaration/confirmation of oral gift and contemporaneous letters from the donor acknowledging the gift—Such production dispelled the objection of non-production of original and materially corroborated the plaintiff’s case. (d) Administrative / Revenue Law—Mutation ----Recall of mutation—Notice and natural justice—The mutation earlier entered on the strength of the oral gift in plaintiff’s favour was withdrawn without notice; such recall offended principles of natural justice and could not defeat vested rights flowing from the proved hiba—Presumption of regularity attaches to official acts of statutory bodies (DHA/MEO) unless rebutted; respondents failed to do so. (e) Property / Registration—Subsequent registered gift ----Registration on certified copy; original title deeds with bank—Where original title documents were with the bank (under memorandum of deposit) and later redeemed by the plaintiff, the donor’s failure to deliver originals to the later donee, coupled with the subsisting earlier mutation, undermined the efficacy of the subsequent registered gift vis-à-vis the already-transferred 50% share. Held: (i) Oral gift of 50% in favour of the appellant stood proved; (ii) Recall of the corresponding mutation, effected without notice, was illegal; (iii) Respondent No. 1 lacked title to gift that 50% later to his wife; the subsequent registered gift to R-2 could not prevail against the prior hiba; (iv) Mere denial by the executant at the stage of dispute is inconsequential where documentary and corroborative evidence supports the gift. The appeal is allowed; the learned Single Judge’s decree is restored and the Division Bench’s judgment is set aside. Cited Provisions: • Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Arts. 102, 103 • Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. XVI, R. 3 Disposition: Appeal allowed—Decree of learned Single Judge restored; impugned judgment of Division Bench set aside.

Summary: (a) Islamic law --- Gift (Hiba) --- Essentials --- Offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession --- Proof --- Failure to prove valid oral gift --- Effect. Petitioners, legal heirs of deceased Imdad Ali, claimed title to inherited property through alleged oral and registered gift deeds. Supreme Court reaffirmed that a valid gift requires: (i) offer by the donor, (ii) acceptance by the donee, and (iii) delivery of possession. Petitioners failed to plead or prove these elements. Neither the date, time, nor place of the alleged oral gift was provided, nor were any attesting witnesses of the gift transaction produced. No cogent or confidence-inspiring evidence was led to establish offer and acceptance. The petitioners also failed to produce key evidence such as the scribe, marginal witnesses, stamp vendor, sub-registrar, or Patwari to prove the execution and attestation of the registered gift deeds. Consequently, the gift was held to be invalid, and the petitioners' claim was rejected. Cited Cases: • Bilal Hussain Shah v. Dilawar Shah PLD 2018 SC 698 • Khalid Hussain v. Nazir Ahmad 2021 SCMR 1986 • Faqir Ali v. Sakina Bibi PLD 2022 SC 85 • Mst. Ramzanu Bibi v. Ibrahim 2025 SCMR 955 • Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Ismail 2002 SCMR 1938 (b) Law of evidence --- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 --- Arts. 129(g) & 133 --- Best evidence rule --- Withholding material witnesses --- Adverse inference --- Application. Petitioners failed to produce essential witnesses, including the scribe, attesting witnesses, and relevant revenue officials, raising an adverse presumption under Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Court held that in cases where a party fails to present the best available evidence, the court is justified in drawing a presumption against that party. Oral claims of gift unsupported by credible documentary or witness testimony were held insufficient. (c) Succession --- Inheritance --- Gift by ancestor to exclusion of daughters --- Burden of proof --- Reason for exclusion must be shown --- Presumption against disinheritance. The Court noted that no reason was given by the petitioners for the exclusion of daughters from the inheritance. In cases involving alleged gifts by a deceased ancestor in favour of male heirs to the exclusion of female heirs, courts must scrutinize the claim with greater care. Absence of evidence showing affection or reward-based motivation for the gift raised strong suspicion. Petitioners bore the heavy burden to justify exclusion, which they failed to discharge. (d) Pleadings and evidence --- Relief beyond pleadings --- Impermissibility --- Case to be proved within bounds of pleadings. Supreme Court reiterated that no party may lead evidence beyond its pleadings. Petitioners did not clearly plead the particulars of the alleged oral gift in their written statements and thus were barred from leading evidence in that regard. Courts below correctly refused to entertain unpleaded facts. Cited Cases: • Zulfiqar v. Shahdat Khan PLD 2007 SC 582 • Combined Investment Ltd. v. Wali Bhai PLD 2016 SC 730 • Saddaruddin v. Sultan Khan 2021 SCMR 642 (e) Limitation Act, 1908 --- Art. 120 --- Declaratory suits --- Right to sue --- When accrues --- Continuing right in suits based on inheritance. Court held that in inheritance-based declaratory suits, the right to sue is a continuing right so long as the plaintiff retains a claim over the property. Where fraud or concealment is alleged, limitation begins from the date of knowledge. Respondents in this case only discovered the fraudulent gift when attempting to obtain a revenue extract in 2009. All three courts below rightly held the suit within time under Art. 120 of the Limitation Act. Cited Case: • Mst. Ramzanu Bibi v. Ibrahim 2025 SCMR 955 (f) Civil procedure --- Concurrent findings of fact --- Scope of interference by Supreme Court --- Principles. The Supreme Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of three courts below, holding that the judgments were based on proper appraisal of evidence and application of settled legal principles. The petitioners had failed to dislodge those findings through any legal or factual error warranting interference under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. Disposition: Leave refused. Petition dismissed. Judgments of trial court, appellate court, and High Court upheld concurrently.

Summary: (a) Family law ---- Recovery of dowry articles --- Gold ornaments --- Gifted articles --- Burden of proof --- Onus to prove snatching of ornaments --- Reappraisal of evidence --- Appellate interference. Petitioner filed a suit for recovery of 11 tolas of gold ornaments, alleging they were gifted by respondent and later snatched when she was expelled from the matrimonial home. Family court dismissed the claim, holding that snatching was not proved. Appellate court reversed the judgment, treating respondent’s inability to account for the ornaments as implicit admission of possession. High Court, in constitutional jurisdiction, set aside appellate judgment and restored family court’s decision, noting petitioner’s failure to appear as a witness and lack of independent evidence of snatching. Supreme Court held that while the gift of ornaments was admitted, the onus to prove snatching lay on the petitioner. However, the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by reappraising evidence and substituting findings of fact recorded by the appellate court. Matter remanded to the appellate court for fresh decision in light of observations made. (b) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Art. 199 --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Scope --- Reappraisal of evidence in writ jurisdiction --- Impermissibility. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, cannot re-evaluate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the lower courts. Where conflicting findings exist between the family and appellate courts, and the appellate court’s conclusion is based on appreciation of evidence, interference by the High Court is unwarranted unless perversity is apparent. The High Court’s re-evaluation of facts regarding the alleged snatching of gold ornaments was held to be in excess of its jurisdiction. (c) Civil Procedure --- Appellate jurisdiction --- Remand of case --- Scope. Where substantial questions regarding factual entitlement arise and have been inconsistently dealt with by lower forums, the proper course is remand. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the case to the appellate court to reappraise evidence and determine whether the petitioner was entitled to recovery of 11 tolas of gold ornaments, especially in light of respondent’s admissions and the trial record. Disposition: Leave granted. Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Judgment of High Court set aside. Case remanded to appellate court for fresh decision in accordance with law.

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: (On appeal from the Order dated 31.01.2023 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in M.A. No. 83 of 2022). (a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 123---Gift of immovable property---Pre-condition---For the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, under section 123 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of donor and attested by at least two witnesses. (b) Islamic law--- ----Gift---Pre-conditions---Constituents and components of a valid gift under Muslim Law are tender, acceptance and possession of property---It is also obligatory that donor divests and dissociates himself from dominion and ownership over property of gift and puts into words his categorical intention to convey ownership to donee distinctly and unambiguously with delivery of possession of property and ensure that donee has secured physical ascendency over property to constitute delivery of possession. Abid Hussain v. Muhammad Yousaf PLD 2022 SC 395 = 2022 SCP 93 rel. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 39, 42 & 54---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 123 & 129---Suit for cancellation of document, declaration and injunction---Oral gift---Proof---Concurrent findings of facts by Courts below---Respondent / plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit property and had assailed oral gift allegedly made in favour of petitioner / defendant by her deceased mother---Suit was decreed by Trial Court in favour of respondent / plaintiff and High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction maintained that judgment and decree---Validity---Despite the fact that oral gift under Islamic Law was not required to be compulsorily registered under Registration Act, 1908, within the exactitudes of sections 123 and 129 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the relaxation of non-registration or optional nature of such registration did not absolve petitioner / defendant (donee) from strictly proving factum of gift or the declartion of oral gift under challenge---Neither petitioner / defendant succeeded in proving indenture of declaration of oral gift nor there was any attempt made to register gift to avoid any future claim or dispute and nor was it proved to have been executed by deceased who was living abroad---Petitioner / defendant also failed to prove as to when deceased donor had come to reduce oral declaration into writing---No witnesses were produced who could satisfactorily corroborate presence of alleged donor in Pakistan---Regardless of all such incongruities and misdeeds, the Housing Society transferred the property in the name of petitioner / defendant in their record which was rightly rendered null and void---Supreme Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below, as there was no illegality or perversity in their judgments and decrees---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Meeru Khan v. Mst. Naheed Aziz Siddiqui and others PLD 2023 SC 912; Additional note in Constitution Petition No. 6 of 2023 and connected cases PLJ 2024 SC 114 = 2024 SCP 4; Abid Hussain v. Muhammad Yousaf PLD 2022 SC 395 = 2022 SCP 93; Babar Anwar v. Muhammad Ashraf and another 2024 SCMR 734 = 2024 SCP 128; Allah Ditta and others v. Manak alias Muhammad Siddique and others 2017 SCMR 402; Muhammad Ejaz and 2 others v. Mst. Khalida Awan and another 2010 SCMR 342; Umar Bibi v. Bashir Ahmad 1997 SCMR 154; Maulvi Abdullah and others v. Abdul Aziz and others 1987 SCMR 1403 and Allah Diwaya v. Ghulam Fatima PLD 2008 SC 73 rel. Shafqat Ali Shah Masoomi, Advocate Supreme Court along with Petitioner for Petitioner. Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Date of hearing: 26th March, 2025.

Summary: (a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 122, 123 & 129—Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss. 17 & 49—Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 117—Muslim Law—Gift of immovable property—Declaration of oral gift—Burden of proof—Delivery of possession—Registration requirement—Effect of failure to prove gift— A valid gift under Muslim law requires three essential ingredients: declaration of gift by the donor, acceptance by the donee, and delivery of possession. While Muslim law permits oral gifts, when a donee claims ownership of immovable property based on an unregistered declaration of oral gift, strict proof of these ingredients is mandatory. In the present case, the petitioner failed to produce any registered document or evidence to establish the presence of the alleged donor (deceased Mst. Hoor Bai) in Pakistan at the time of the purported gift, nor could he prove the donor's intention, acceptance by the donee, or delivery of possession. The donee’s claim of being gifted the property was thus rightly rejected by the courts below. Cited Cases: Muhammad Ejaz v. Mst. Khalida Awan (2010 SCMR 342) Abid Hussain v. Muhammad Yousaf (PLD 2022 SC 395) Babar Anwar v. Muhammad Ashraf (2024 SCMR 734) Allah Ditta v. Manak alias Muhammad Siddique (2017 SCMR 402) Umar Bibi v. Bashir Ahmad (1997 SCMR 154) Maulvi Abdullah v. Abdul Aziz (1987 SCMR 1403) Allah Diwaya v. Ghulam Fatima (PLD 2008 SC 73) (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 117—Onus probandi—Proof of relationship—Discharge of burden—Testimony of witnesses—Effect— Where a party claims inheritance or legal right in property based on familial relationship, the burden lies on them to prove that relationship under Art. 117. In the instant case, the respondent (plaintiff) successfully proved her status as the daughter of the deceased owner, Mst. Hoor Bai, through corroborated oral testimony of three witnesses. The petitioner failed to rebut this evidence during cross-examination. Once the relationship was established, the petitioner’s claim of being gifted the property by a stranger (i.e., the deceased) without any cogent explanation became untenable in law. (c) Cooperative Societies—Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 2020 (Sindh Act XXVIII of 2020), Ss. 73, 99, 104, 117 & 118—Sindh Cooperative Societies Rules, 2020, R. 53—Jurisdiction of Cooperative Court—Transfer of property disputes—Classification of disputes—Judicial review—Interpretation and anomalies in statutory provisions— Disputes relating to ownership, possession, or cancellation of documents involving a cooperative society fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Court for Cooperative Societies, established under S.117 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 2020, and Rule 53 of the corresponding Rules. The Court observed that while offences under the Act are clearly defined, civil disputes are categorised under the Rules and not the Act itself. Furthermore, certain errors in statutory cross-referencing (e.g., incorrect mention of Ss. 121 and 78 in S.104) were noted, and the Supreme Court directed the provincial government to consider necessary legislative corrections. (d) Declaratory Suit—Suit for cancellation of documents and possession—Allegation of fraudulent transfer—Oral gift challenged—Concurrent findings—Scope of interference by Supreme Court— Concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent on the grounds that she was the lawful heir and the alleged oral gift to the petitioner was unsubstantiated. The petitioner’s failure to prove the essential ingredients of a valid gift, coupled with established heirship of the respondent, rendered the challenge meritless. The Supreme Court declined to interfere, holding the judgments below to be well-reasoned and supported by law and evidence. Disposition: Leave to appeal refused. Civil Petition dismissed. Judgment and decree of Trial Court and High Court upheld. Directions issued to the Secretary, Law & Parliamentary Affairs, Sindh, for review and correction of legislative inconsistencies in paragraph 10.

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) Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908): ----Ss. 17 & 49---Gift of immovable property---Registration---Legal effect---Validity---Unregistered gift deed of immovable property has no legal sanctity and cannot transfer title, right or interest in the property---Appellant claimed ownership of residential property in Islamabad through an unregistered gift deed allegedly executed by her husband (respondent No. 1) in the capacity of attorney for the original owner, Muhammad Rafiq s/o Punnu Khan---Held, under S. 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, a gift of immovable property is compulsorily registrable, and under S. 49, failure to register renders such document legally ineffective---Appellant’s claim of ownership failed due to non-registration of the gift deed. Relied on: Muhammad Ejaz v. Mst. Khalida Awan (2010 SCMR 342); Allah Diwaya v. Ghulam Fatima (PLD 2008 SC 73) **(b) Power of Attorney---Gift to attorney’s wife---Validity---Special permission---Requirement---Attorney gifting principal’s property to his spouse---Held, a general power of attorney does not empower an attorney to gift principal’s property to his own wife unless express permission is conferred by the principal---No such specific authority was found in the power of attorney dated 17.09.1990 produced in this case---Gift allegedly executed during lifetime of principal without his personal intervention or explicit consent, thus rendering the transaction invalid in law. Relied on: Allah Bakhsh v. Muhammad Riaz (PLD 2025 SC 63); Ijaz Bashir Qureshi v. Shams-un-Nisa Qureshi (2021 SCMR 1298); Rab Nawaz v. Mst. Samra Andleeb (2025 MLD 286) (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) & Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----Proof of gift---Essential ingredients---Burden of proof---Offer, acceptance, delivery of possession---Failure to establish valid execution of gift---Appellant failed to produce title documents of the suit property, failed to prove possession or transfer, and did not establish three essential elements of a valid gift---Also failed to produce material witnesses including her husband, who allegedly executed the gift deed---Held, the claim of ownership based on alleged gift was unsupported by evidence and contrary to settled principles of law. Relied on: Mst. Shumal Begum v. Mst. Gulzar Begum (1994 SCMR 818); Haji Faqir Muhammad v. Pir Muhammad (1997 SCMR 1811); Maqsood Ahmad v. Salman Ali (PLD 2003 SC 31) **(d) General Clauses Act (X of 1897)---Power of attorney---Termination---Effect of principal’s death---Death of principal extinguishes power of attorney---Registered general power of attorney executed in 1990 became ineffective upon death of principal in 2000---Appellant’s continued possession and reliance upon power of attorney posthumously was held unlawful and without legal force. Relied on: Muhammad Nawaz v. Muhammad Khan (2016 CLC Note 62) **(e) Civil Procedure---Appeal---Findings of fact---Interference by appellate court---Scope---Where findings of the trial court are based on proper appreciation of evidence, no interference is warranted---Held, learned trial court rightly dismissed the suit due to lack of evidence and legal infirmities in appellant’s claim---Regular First Appeal dismissed being without merit. Appeal Dismissed.