Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----Specific performance of agreement to sell---Discretionary and equitable relief---Continuous readiness and willingness---Petitions arose out of three interconnected civil proceedings concerning same immovable property and two competing agreements to sell dated 16.04.2014 and 03.06.2016---Supreme Court held that relief of specific performance, though statutorily recognized, was not granted as a matter of right but rested in equity and judicial discretion---Person seeking such relief was required to plead and prove that he had been continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract---Readiness and willingness was not a mere formal requirement but foundational to equitable relief, as the Court could not compel performance of reciprocal obligations unless satisfied that the claimant himself had adhered to the discipline of the contract---Held, plaintiff seeking specific performance must establish continuous readiness and willingness through pleadings, conduct and reliable evidence, failing which the foundation for equitable relief becomes unsustainable. Cited Cases: • Messrs DW Pakistan (Private) Limited, Lahore v. Begum Anisa Fazl-I-Mahmood and others 2023 SCMR 555 • Ijaz Ul Haq v. Mrs. Maroof Begum Ahmed and others PLD 2023 SC 653 • Muhammad Yaqub v. Muhammad Nasrullah Khan and others PLD 1986 SC 497 • Narinjan v. Muhammad Yunus AIR 1932 Lah 265 (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----First Sched., Appendix “A”, Form 47---Suit for specific performance---Pleading readiness and willingness---Requirement not an empty technicality---Supreme Court held that plaint in a suit for specific performance must conform to Form 47 of Appendix “A” to the First Schedule of C.P.C. and must contain a clear assertion that plaintiff “has been and still is ready and willing specifically to perform the agreement” on his part---Plaintiff must plead readiness and willingness in clear and specific terms and then prove the same by convincing evidence---Readiness must relate to contract as actually executed, including timelines and conditions, and must continue from inception of obligation until institution of suit---In the present case, plaint did not contain the categorical averment mandated by Form 47 and absence of clear continuous assertion weakened the very foundation of the claim for specific performance. Cited Cases: • Messrs DW Pakistan (Private) Limited, Lahore v. Begum Anisa Fazl-I-Mahmood and others 2023 SCMR 555 • Ijaz Ul Haq v. Mrs. Maroof Begum Ahmed and others PLD 2023 SC 653 • Muhammad Yaqub v. Muhammad Nasrullah Khan and others PLD 1986 SC 497 (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----Specific performance of agreement to sell---Balance sale consideration---Tender, deposit or proof of financial capacity---Buyer’s primary obligation---Supreme Court held that in a contract for sale of immovable property the vendee’s core reciprocal obligation is payment of balance sale consideration---Readiness and willingness cannot be established in abstraction or by mere assertion; it must be reflected through objective acts showing financial capacity and preparedness to perform---Preparation of pay order, cashier cheque, segregation of funds, bank guarantee, bank statement, or prompt deposit in Court are evidentiary indicators of bona fide readiness---Though deposit of sale consideration at the time of filing suit is not an inflexible statutory precondition, failure to tender or otherwise demonstrate availability of funds materially affects the plaintiff’s claim---Where no credible material shows that buyer secured or tendered consideration in terms of agreement, Court may draw adverse inference regarding bona fides. Cited Cases: • Nazar Hussain and another v. Syed Iqbal Ahmad Qadri 2022 SCMR 1216 • Inayatullah Khan and others v. Shabir Ahmad Khan 2021 SCMR 686 • Muhammad Yousaf v. Allah Ditta and others 2021 SCMR 1241 • Mst. Noor Jehan and another v. Saleem Shahadat 2022 SCMR 918 • Muhammad Jamil and others v. Muhammad Arif 2021 SCMR 1108 • Hamood Mehmood v. Mst. Shabana Ishaque and others 2017 SCMR 2022 • Muhammad Shafiq Ullah and others v. Allah Bakhsh through LRs 2021 SCMR 763 (d) Contract Act (IX of 1872)---- ----S. 51---Reciprocal promises---Agreement to sell immovable property---Vendor’s obligation to execute sale deed dependent upon vendee’s readiness to pay balance sale consideration---Supreme Court held that obligations of vendor and vendee in sale of immovable property are ordinarily reciprocal and interdependent---Vendor cannot be compelled to execute and register sale deed unless vendee first establishes through pleadings and proof that he was ready and willing to perform his corresponding obligation to pay balance sale consideration---Court while exercising jurisdiction in suit for specific performance must examine mutuality of obligations and determine whether claimant has satisfied pre-requisite of demonstrating his own readiness to perform. Cited Case: • Mst. Samina Riffat and others v. Rohail Asghar and others 2021 SCMR 7 (e) Contract Act (IX of 1872) / Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----Time as essence of contract---Sale of immovable property---Express contractual stipulation---Effect---Although time is not ordinarily treated as essence in transactions of immovable property, parties are competent to expressly stipulate otherwise---Where agreement prescribes definite time for payment and provides consequence for default, Court must give effect to contractual terms settled between parties---Equitable jurisdiction of Court does not extend to rewriting bargain or diluting express stipulations relating to timelines and forfeiture---In present case, agreement dated 03.06.2016 specifically required balance sale consideration to be paid on or before 15.01.2017; obligation was neither contingent nor deferred but formed core reciprocal promise of vendees---No tender of balance amount was made within stipulated time, no pay order, bank guarantee, bank statement or segregated funds were shown, and no immediate deposit was made in Court upon institution of suit---Deposit made only after Court direction and substantially beyond contractual deadline could not retrospectively cure absence of readiness and willingness at material time. Cited Cases: • Fazal Ur Rehman v. Ahmed Saeed Mughal and others 2004 SCMR 436 • Muhammad Jamil v. Muhammad Arif 2021 SCMR 1108 (f) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----Specific performance---Belated deposit of balance consideration---Effect---Courts below treated subsequent deposit of balance sale consideration, made pursuant to Court direction after expiry of stipulated period, as sufficient to cure earlier default---Supreme Court held that such approach was contrary to settled principles---Jurisprudence did not equate belated compliance with continuous readiness and willingness---Court was required to examine whether plaintiff had secured, tendered or demonstrated availability of consideration on the due date fixed by contract and whether such readiness continued thereafter without interruption---Failure to conduct such inquiry amounted to overlooking a material legal requirement governing grant of specific performance---Record did not satisfactorily establish that respondents fulfilled essential precondition of continuous readiness and willingness; therefore decree for specific performance could not be sustained. (g) Administration of justice---- ----Concurrent findings of fact---Interference by Supreme Court---Misreading/non-reading of evidence and violation of settled principles---Although concurrent findings are not ordinarily disturbed, interference is warranted where findings result from misreading or non-reading of material evidence or are contrary to settled principles governing equitable relief---Courts below failed to properly examine absence of timely tender, absence of financial proof, absence of immediate deposit in Court, defective pleadings under Form 47 C.P.C., and contractual stipulation making time material for payment---Concurrent judgments therefore could not be maintained. Cited Cases: • Habib Ur Rehman and others v. Abdul Karim through LRs 2025 SCMR 1262 • United Bank Limited through its President and others v. Jamil Ahmed and others 2024 SCMR 164 / 2024 PLC 50 SC • 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 (h) Specific performance---- ----Earlier agreement dated 16.04.2014---Agreement already cancelled by competent Court---Finality of judgment---No decree for specific performance sustainable---Petitioner Muhammad Imran sought possession through specific performance of agreement dated 16.04.2014---Courts below dismissed his suit, appeal and Regular Second Appeal---Supreme Court held that agreement sought to be specifically performed had already been cancelled by Court of competent jurisdiction due to non-payment of balance sale consideration within stipulated time, in terms of contractual conditions---Such determination was not assailed further and had attained finality---No decree for specific performance could legally be sustained on basis of such cancelled agreement---Petition was devoid of merit and leave was refused. Disposition: Petitions for leave to appeal in C.P.L.A. Nos. 3649 and 3650 of 2025 were converted into appeals and allowed; impugned judgments of courts below were set aside; suit for specific performance filed by respondents No.3 and 4 on basis of agreement dated 03.06.2016 was dismissed; suit for cancellation of agreement filed by petitioners/respondents was decreed; suit instituted by Muhammad Imran in C.P.L.A. No.3639 of 2025 for specific performance on basis of agreement dated 16.04.2014 was dismissed and leave refused; earnest money paid under agreements dated 16.04.2014 and 03.06.2016 was ordered to be returned by respective recipients to concerned payers within thirty days from date of judgment.

Summary: (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Challenge to mutation---Suit filed after twenty-two years---Unexplained delay---Effect---Mutation No.684 was sanctioned on 15.03.1980, whereas suit challenging the same was instituted on 16.05.2002 after lapse of more than twenty-two years---Plaintiff remained silent during such prolonged period and took no steps to question validity of mutation or underlying transaction---No convincing or legally acceptable explanation was furnished for such inordinate delay---Held, that person who sleeps over his rights for decades cannot subsequently seek to unsettle long-standing entries in revenue record and disturb settled rights of parties---Suit was hopelessly barred by limitation. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Miskeen and others v. Noor Muhammad and others 2011 SCMR 808 • Muhammad Hussain and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others 2008 SCMR 230 • Ghulam Haider and others v. Wali Muhammad and others 2008 SCMR 1425 • Atta Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh 2007 SCMR 1446 • Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others PLD 2015 SC 212 • United Bank Limited and others v. Noor-Un-Nisa and others 2015 SCMR 380 • Lahore Development Authority v. Mst. Sharifan Bibi and another PLD 2010 SC 705 • Sardar Anwar Ali Khan and others v. Sardar Baqir Ali through Legal Heirs and others 1992 SCMR 2435 (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 39---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 91---Fraudulent document or transaction---Suit for declaration/cancellation---Limitation---Plaintiff attempted to avoid bar of limitation by alleging that mutation was procured through fraud and misrepresentation---Held, that although fraud vitiates solemn acts, allegation of fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved through reliable evidence---Where a document or transaction is alleged to have been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, matter falls within S.39 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 and suit seeking declaration or cancellation must be filed within limitation prescribed under Art.91 of Limitation Act, 1908, i.e. three years from date when alleged fraud comes to knowledge of plaintiff---Plea of fraud could not be invoked merely to circumvent law of limitation. Cited Cases: • Mst. Zulaikhan Bibi through LRs and others v. Mst. Roshan Jan and others 2011 SCMR 986 • Muhammad Younus Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. 1993 SCMR 618 • Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others PLD 2015 SC 212 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984--- ----Fraud, forgery and misrepresentation---Burden of proof---Mutation challenged after long delay---Plaintiff alleged that mutation was result of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation and had been sanctioned without his consent or authority---Trial Court and First Appellate Court, after appraisal of oral and documentary evidence, concurrently held that plaintiff failed to prove fraud through independent evidence---Held, that bald allegations of fraud were insufficient---Fraud being a question of fact had to be established by reliable, convincing and cogent evidence---Plaintiff’s long silence for more than two decades further undermined credibility of allegation. (d) Revenue record--- ----Long-standing mutation entries---Laches, limitation and third-party rights---Effect---Mutation in question remained incorporated in revenue record for decades without challenge and third-party rights had also come into existence---Held, that long-standing entries in revenue record ought not to be unsettled lightly, particularly where they remained unquestioned for considerable period and rights accrued on their basis---Challenges to old mutation entries after prolonged inaction must be viewed with great circumspection and ordinarily ought not to be entertained. Cited Cases: • Waris Khan and 18 others v. Col. Humayun Shah and 41 others PLD 1994 SC 336 • Mst. Grana through legal heirs v. Sahib Kamala Bibi PLD 2014 SC 167 (e) Revenue record--- ----Mutation incorporated in Jamabandi---Presumption of correctness---Burden to rebut---Once mutation was sanctioned and incorporated into Jamabandi, it formed part of regular revenue record and carried statutory presumption of truth---Plaintiff failed to produce convincing evidence to rebut such presumption---Held, that presumption of regularity and correctness attached to revenue entries could not be lightly displaced---Courts below rightly gave due weight to revenue record and held that plaintiff failed to discharge heavy burden required to dislodge presumption attached thereto. Cited Cases: • Abdul Ahad and others v. Roshan Din and others PLD 1979 SC 890 • Ghulam Haider and others v. Wali Muhammad and others 2008 SCMR 1425 • Muhammad Hussain and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others 2008 SCMR 230 (f) Land Revenue Act--- ----Mutation proceedings---Procedural irregularity---Effect on otherwise established sale transaction---Plaintiff raised objections regarding procedure adopted in attestation of mutation---Held, that even if certain procedural irregularities existed in attestation of mutation, such irregularities by themselves would not invalidate an otherwise established transaction of sale---Where authenticity and genuineness of underlying sale transaction is established, mere irregularity in mutation procedure does not affect binding effect of mutation---Technical defects in mutation process cannot defeat substantive rights where transaction is proved by credible oral and documentary evidence. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ishaq and others v. Ghafoor Khan and another 2000 SCMR 519 • Muhammad Afzal and others v. Province of Punjab 2001 SCMR 593 • Nawab Din v. Giani 2008 SCMR 657 (g) Revenue record--- ----Mutation entries---Nature and evidentiary value---Mutation entries by themselves do not create title, but where underlying transaction is proved through credible evidence, such entries may validly reflect transfer of rights---In the present case, subordinate Courts examined oral and documentary evidence and concurrently held that transaction reflected in mutation was genuine and plaintiff had failed to establish fraud or misrepresentation---Held, that procedural objections regarding mutation proceedings could not annul transaction or justify setting aside concurrent findings recorded by subordinate Courts. (h) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of fact---Scope of interference---Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held that mutation reflected genuine sale transaction, fraud was not proved and suit was time-barred---High Court, in revision, reassessed evidence and substituted its own conclusions without identifying misreading, non-reading, perversity or material illegality in findings of Courts below---Held, that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and does not convert High Court into a third Court of fact---Concurrent findings of fact cannot ordinarily be disturbed unless based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, or suffering from perversity, illegality or material irregularity affecting merits of case---High Court exceeded settled limits of revisional jurisdiction. Cited Cases: • Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others 2010 SCMR 1630 • Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen and another v. Shafqat Ali Kiyani and another 2023 SCMR 246 • Nawab Din v. Giani 2008 SCMR 657 • Muhammad Ishaq and others v. Ghafoor Khan and another 2000 SCMR 519 • Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another 2014 SCMR 1469 • Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others 2014 SCMR 161 • Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim etc. 2017 SCMR 679 • Muhammad Sarwar and others v. Hashmal Khan and others PLD 2022 SC 13 • Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan PLD 2022 SC 21 • Salamat Ali and others v. Muhammad Din and others PLJ 2023 SC 8 • Mst. Farzana Zia and others v. Mst. Saadia Andaleeb 2024 SCMR 916 (i) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Misreading, non-reading and misappreciation of evidence---Distinction---Scope of revisional Court---Held, that misreading or non-reading of evidence may justify revisional interference where finding is perverse, absurd, jurisdictionally defective or contrary to law---Mere misappreciation or possibility of another view does not permit revisional Court to substitute its own conclusion for concurrent findings of Courts below---If facts have been justly tried by two Courts and both reached same conclusion, High Court should not revisit evidence merely to draw another conclusion. (j) Civil suit--- ----Challenge to mutation---Solitary statement of plaintiff versus documentary proof---Effect---Plaintiff alleged that he did not visit Patwari’s office on date of mutation but produced no independent witness and remained confined to his solitary statement---Mutation No.684 and Exchange Mutation No.683 were entered and sanctioned on same day with same identifying witnesses, which negated plaintiff’s stance---Held, that solitary statement was insufficient to dislodge documentary proof and revenue record produced by defendants---Subordinate Courts correctly concluded that plaintiff failed to prove fraud, forgery or misrepresentation. (k) Civil suit--- ----Suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction---Challenge to mutation after twenty-two years---Concurrent dismissal by Trial Court and First Appellate Court---High Court decreeing suit in revision---Supreme Court interference---Held, that cumulative effect of record showed that suit was hopelessly barred by limitation; allegations of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation remained unsubstantiated; mutation incorporated in revenue record for decades carried presumption of correctness; third-party rights had intervened; and High Court transgressed limits of revisional jurisdiction by interfering with concurrent findings without showing misreading or non-reading of evidence---Impugned High Court judgment could not be sustained. Disposition: Appeals were allowed. Judgment dated 21.11.2019 passed by Islamabad High Court was set aside. Concurrent judgments and decrees of Trial Court dated 17.03.2017 and First Appellate Court dated 11.11.2017 were restored. Civil suit filed by respondent No.1 stood dismissed. Pending CMAs were disposed of as infructuous. No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---- ----Challenge to mutation after twenty-two years---Unexplained delay---Suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction---Mutation No.684 was sanctioned on 15.03.1980, whereas respondent No.1 instituted suit on 16.05.2002 after lapse of more than twenty-two years alleging fraud, forgery and misrepresentation---Supreme Court held that unexplained delay in challenging a mutation renders the claim legally untenable---Respondent remained completely silent for more than two decades and took no step to question validity of mutation or underlying sale transaction---No convincing or legally acceptable explanation was furnished for such inordinate delay---A person who sleeps over his rights for decades cannot subsequently seek to unsettle long-standing entries in revenue record and disturb settled rights of parties---Law of limitation is designed to bring certainty and finality to legal relations and prevent reopening of stale claims---Suit was clearly and hopelessly barred by limitation. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Miskeen and others v. Noor Muhammad and others 2011 SCMR 808 • Muhammad Hussain and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others 2008 SCMR 230 • Ghulam Haider and others v. Wali Muhammad and others 2008 SCMR 1425 • Atta Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh 2007 SCMR 1446 • Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others PLD 2015 SC 212 • United Bank Limited and others v. Noor-Un-Nisa and others 2015 SCMR 380 • Lahore Development Authority v. Mst. Sharifan Bibi and another PLD 2010 SC 705 • Sardar Anwar Ali Khan and 10 others v. Sardar Baqir Ali through Legal Heirs and 4 others 1992 SCMR 2435 (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----S. 39---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 91---Fraud alleged in respect of mutation/sale transaction---Fraud vitiates all solemn acts, but must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved---Supreme Court reiterated that fraud vitiates solemn acts and any instrument, deed, judgment or decree obtained through fraud is a nullity, but allegation of fraud cannot be accepted on mere assertion---Fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved through reliable evidence---Question of fraud involves finding of fact regarding conduct of party concerned---Even where fraud is alleged in relation to an instrument or transaction, party challenging such instrument is required to seek cancellation within prescribed limitation period---Where document is alleged to have been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, matter falls within S.39 of Specific Relief Act and suit seeking declaration/cancellation must be filed within three years under Art.91 of Limitation Act from date when alleged fraud comes to knowledge of plaintiff---Respondent failed to produce convincing evidence of fraud and remained silent for more than two decades; plea of fraud could not be used to circumvent law of limitation. Cited Cases: • Mst. Zulaikhan Bibi through LRs and others v. Mst. Roshan Jan and others 2011 SCMR 986 • Muhammad Younus Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. 1993 SCMR 618 • Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others PLD 2015 SC 212 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984)---- ----Proof of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation---Independent and reliable evidence required---Respondent alleged that Mutation No.684 dated 15.03.1980 was procured through fraud, forgery and misrepresentation and without his consent or authority---Trial Court and First Appellate Court, after appraisal of oral and documentary evidence, held that respondent failed to prove fraud, forgery or misrepresentation through independent evidence---Supreme Court held that such allegations remained unsubstantiated and were rightly disbelieved by subordinate Courts---Mutation No.684 and Exchange Mutation No.683 were entered and sanctioned on same day and identifying witnesses were the same, which negatived respondent’s stance that he had not visited office of Patwari on relevant date---Respondent remained confined to his solitary statement and did not produce independent witnesses sufficient to dislodge documentary proof brought on record. (d) Revenue record---- ----Long-standing mutation entries---Presumption of correctness---Jamabandi---Revenue entries remaining unquestioned for decades---Supreme Court held that long-standing entries in revenue record ought not to be unsettled lightly, particularly where they have remained unquestioned for considerable period and rights have subsequently accrued on their basis---Once mutation is duly sanctioned and incorporated into Jamabandi, it forms part of regular revenue record and carries statutory presumption of truth unless rebutted by strong and cogent evidence---Mutation in question remained part of revenue record for more than two decades without challenge---Respondent produced no convincing evidence to rebut presumption attached to revenue entries---Courts below were justified in giving due weight to revenue record and holding that respondent failed to discharge heavy burden required to displace statutory presumption. Cited Cases: • Waris Khan and 18 others v. Col. Humayun Shah and 41 others PLD 1994 SC 336 • Mst. Grana through legal heirs v. Sahib Kamala Bibi PLD 2014 SC 167 • Abdul Ahad and others v. Roshan Din and others PLD 1979 SC 890 • Ghulam Haider and others v. Wali Muhammad and others 2008 SCMR 1425 • Muhammad Hussain and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others 2008 SCMR 230 (e) Mutation---- ----Procedural irregularity in attestation---Effect on proved sale transaction---Mutation entries do not themselves create title, but where underlying transaction is proved through credible evidence, technical defects in mutation proceedings cannot invalidate transaction---Supreme Court held that even if certain procedural irregularities in attestation of mutation were assumed, such irregularities by themselves would not invalidate an otherwise established transaction of sale---Subordinate Courts examined oral and documentary evidence and concurrently held that transaction reflected in mutation was genuine and respondent had failed to establish fraud or misrepresentation---Procedural objections regarding mutation proceedings could not annul transaction or justify setting aside concurrent findings. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ishaq and others v. Ghafoor Khan and another 2000 SCMR 519 • Muhammad Afzal and others v. Province of Punjab 2001 SCMR 593 • Nawab Din v. Giani 2008 SCMR 657 (f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of fact---Scope of interference---Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently dismissed suit after proper appraisal of oral and documentary evidence, holding that sale transaction was genuine, fraud was not proved and suit was barred by limitation---Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot ordinarily be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction unless shown to suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence, perversity, illegality or material irregularity affecting merits---Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and does not convert High Court into third court of fact---High Court reassessed evidence and substituted its own conclusions without identifying misreading, non-reading, material illegality or perversity in findings of subordinate Courts---Such approach was inconsistent with settled limits of revisional jurisdiction and amounted to impermissible interference with concurrent findings of fact. Cited Cases: • Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others 2010 SCMR 1630 • Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen and another v. Shafqat Ali Kiyani and another 2023 SCMR 246 • Nawab Din v. Giani 2008 SCMR 657 • Muhammad Ishaq and others v. Ghafoor Khan and another 2000 SCMR 519 • Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another 2014 SCMR 1469 • Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others 2014 SCMR 161 • Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim, etc. 2017 SCMR 679 • Muhammad Sarwar and others v. Hashmal Khan and others PLD 2022 SC 13 • Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan PLD 2022 SC 21 • Salamat Ali and others v. Muhammad Din and others PLJ 2023 SC 8 • Mst. Farzana Zia and others v. Mst. Saadia Andaleeb 2024 SCMR 916 (g) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S. 115---Difference between misreading/non-reading and misappreciation of evidence---High Court’s limits in revision---Supreme Court reiterated that scope of appellate and revisional jurisdiction must not be confused---Revisional Court cannot upset finding of fact merely because another view appears more plausible---Interference is permissible only where finding is result of misreading, non-reading, perverse or absurd appraisal of material evidence, jurisdictional error, illegality or serious miscarriage of justice---If facts have been justly tried by two Courts and same conclusion has been reached concurrently, revisiting evidence in second appeal or revision to draw another conclusion would offend doctrine of finality---High Court cannot independently reassess evidence to supplant its own conclusion unless findings below are legally flawed. Cited Cases: • Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others 2010 SCMR 1630 • Salamat Ali and others v. Muhammad Din and others PLJ 2023 SC 8 • Mst. Farzana Zia and others v. Mst. Saadia Andaleeb 2024 SCMR 916 (h) Revenue record / Limitation---- ----Third-party rights and finality of long-standing entries---Mutation remaining incorporated for decades---Effect---Supreme Court held that where revenue entries have remained unchallenged for prolonged period and third-party rights have intervened, challenges to such entries must be viewed with great circumspection and ordinarily ought not to be entertained---In present case, during long interregnum of over twenty-two years, third-party rights had come into existence, further strengthening need to uphold sanctity and finality of long-standing revenue entries---Belated suit challenging mutation could not be permitted to unsettle settled rights. Disposition: Appeals were allowed; judgment dated 21.11.2019 passed by Islamabad High Court in Civil Revision No.410 of 2017 was set aside; concurrent judgments and decrees of Trial Court dated 17.03.2017 and First Appellate Court dated 11.11.2017 were restored; civil suit filed by respondent No.1 was dismissed; no order as to costs; connected CMAs No.12138 and 12580 of 2019 and CMA No.2581 of 2022 were disposed of as infructuous.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----Specific performance---Oral agreement to sell immovable property---Strict proof required---Respondents/plaintiffs sought specific performance on basis of alleged oral agreement dated 28.05.1992, allegedly arising out of reconciliation after acquittal in a murder case, whereby petitioner/defendant was said to have agreed to transfer 32 kanals of land to them---Supreme Court held that an oral agreement intended to bind parties may be valid and enforceable, but it must be proved through clearest and most satisfactory evidence---Basic ingredients of valid contract, including offer, acceptance, lawful consideration, mutuality of obligation, competency of parties and consensus ad idem, must be established through unimpeachable evidence. Cited Cases: • Hafiz Qari Abdul Fateh through LRs v. Ms. Urooj Fatima and others 2024 SCMR 1709 • Maqbool Ahmad v. Suleman Ali PLD 2003 SC 31 (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)---- ----S. 2(h)---Agreement---Oral agreement for sale of immovable property---Onus of proof---Supreme Court held that person seeking decree of specific performance on basis of oral agreement must prove that mutual agreement and consensus existed between parties regarding terms of contract---Oral agreement must satisfy legal requirements of an enforceable agreement under Contract Act, 1872---Respondents failed to prove essential elements of alleged bargain with requisite clarity and certainty. (c) Specific performance---- ----Oral agreement to sell---Pleadings---Date, time, place, witnesses, consideration and terms---Sine qua non---Supreme Court held that party claiming existence of oral agreement must clearly specify date, time, place and names of witnesses in pleadings, along with exact terms and conditions, consideration, subject matter and detail of striking of bargain---Such requirements are sine qua non for proving oral agreement to sell---Suits based on oral sale agreements are more susceptible to dishonest improvements in evidence and pleadings; therefore Courts must strictly insist upon foundational details at earliest stage. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Riaz and others v. Mst. Badshah Begum and others 2021 SCMR 605 • Moiz Abbas v. Mrs. Latifa and others 2019 SCMR 74 • Saddaruddin through LRs v. Sultan Khan through LRs and others 2021 SCMR 642 • Sheikh Akhtar Aziz v. Mst. Shabnam Begum and others 2019 SCMR 524 • Muhammad Nawaz through LRs v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan through LRs 2013 SCMR 1300 (d) Pleadings and evidence---- ----Evidence beyond pleadings---Impermissible improvement---Oral agreement and alleged reconciliation committee/Jirga---Respondents’ plaint did not disclose with precision date, time and place of alleged oral agreement, exact terms and conditions, settled consideration, or names of witnesses before whom bargain was struck---Plea of reconciliation committee/Jirga was also not supported by necessary particulars in pleadings---Supreme Court held that attempt to supplement foundational deficiencies through oral testimony amounted to impermissible improvement beyond pleadings and could not be looked into---Parties must lead evidence in consonance with pleadings, and no evidence can be considered in support of a plea not properly taken. Cited Cases: • Saddaruddin through LRs v. Sultan Khan through LRs and others 2021 SCMR 642 • Sardar Muhammad Naseem Khan v. Returning Officer, PP-12 and others 2015 SCMR 1698 • Binyameen and others v. Chaudhry Hakim and another 1996 SCMR 336 (e) Specific performance---- ----Sale of immovable property---Requirements for enforcement---Transaction with title holder, offer, acceptance, competency, consideration and delivery of possession---Supreme Court reiterated that to enforce sale of immovable property, vendee must establish that transaction was made with title holder, offer was made and accepted, parties were competent, consensus ad idem existed, valid consideration was settled, and transaction was accompanied by delivery of possession---Respondents failed to satisfy such strict standard of proof in respect of alleged oral agreement. Cited Case: • Muhammad Yaqoob v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others PLD 2020 SC 338 (f) Specific performance---- ----Alleged possession and subsequent ownership mutation---Effect---Respondents alleged that possession had been delivered and petitioner became bound to transfer property after securing ownership rights through Mutation No.1314 dated 14.10.2016---Supreme Court held that mere assertions regarding possession or subsequent title could not substitute proof of valid oral agreement---Mere prolonged possession, even coupled with title documents, does not establish ownership or enforceable sale unless underlying sale agreement is legally proved. (g) Concurrent findings---- ----Specific performance decreed by Trial Court, maintained by Appellate Court and High Court---Concurrent findings contrary to settled law---Interference by Supreme Court---Trial Court, after remand, decreed suit for specific performance; Appellate Court dismissed petitioner’s appeal and High Court dismissed revision---Supreme Court held that Courts below failed to apply strict standard of proof mandated for oral agreements to sell immovable property---Findings suffered from misapplication of settled law and non-reading of material deficiencies in pleadings and proof---Concurrent findings cannot be allowed to stand where demonstrably contrary to principles repeatedly laid down by Supreme Court. Cited Cases: • Habib Ur Rehman and others v. Abdul Karim through LRs and others 2025 SCMR 1262 • United Bank Limited through its President and others v. Jamil Ahmed and others 2024 SCMR 164 / 2024 PLC 50 SC • 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 was converted into appeal and allowed; judgments and decrees passed by Trial Court, Appellate Court and Lahore High Court were set aside; suit filed by respondents for specific performance of alleged oral agreement stood dismissed; no order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987---- ----Ss. 24, 27 & 28---Pre-emption suit---Deposit of one-third sale consideration---Actual sale consideration disputed---Plaint rejected under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. for alleged non-compliance with statutory deposit requirement---Supreme Court held that pre-emption law is anchored to the sale transaction itself and not to an independent or automatic assessment of market value---Pre-emptor ordinarily steps into shoes of vendee and must purchase property at same consideration where price is found genuine and fixed in good faith---Market value is not the default rule; it becomes relevant only where declared consideration is proved fictitious, inflated or mala fide. (b) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987---- ----S. 27---Determination of price payable by pre-emptor---Genuine sale price versus market value---Two-stage mechanism---Supreme Court held that where sale consideration is found to be genuine and fixed in good faith, Court shall fix such price to be paid by pre-emptor---Pre-emptor cannot claim property merely on perceived “realistic” or market value---Only where Court concludes that stated price was not fixed in good faith, for example where it was inflated or fictitious to defeat pre-emption, Court may determine market value as price payable by pre-emptor. Cited Cases: • Zilla Muhammad v. Qamar Ali Khan 2016 SCMR 184 • Allah Bakhsh v. Umar 1991 SCMR 1692 (c) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987---- ----S. 24---Deposit in pre-emption suit---“Sale consideration” not “pre-emption money”---Supreme Court reiterated that statutory deposit under S.24 is one-third of sale consideration---Courts should avoid loose expression “pre-emption money” and instead use correct statutory terminology, namely “sale consideration”---Lower Courts must calculate and specify precise amount required for deposit within reasonable time. Cited Case: • Wasal Khan v. Niaz Ali Khan 2016 SCMR 40 (d) Pre-emption---- ----Inflated or exaggerated sale consideration---Burden of proof---Market value lower than transaction price---Effect---Appellant/pre-emptor contended that value shown in sale transaction was exorbitantly higher than market value---Supreme Court held that such plea is insignificant unless it is shown that inflated value was purposely stated to defeat right of pre-emption---A very heavy burden rests on pre-emptor seeking to enforce pre-emption on such plea---Seller is not deprived merely because property fetched price higher than prevailing market value; what matters is whether declared price was actually paid and represented bona fide transactional value. (e) Pre-emption---- ----Bona fide transactional value---Court’s duty---Supreme Court held that Trial Court must determine whether sale consideration disclosed in transaction was exaggerated and not actually paid to vendor, or whether it was true transactional value actually paid, irrespective of market value---The Court must first examine bona fides of sale price before resorting to valuation based on comparable sales or surrounding circumstances. (f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Pre-emption suit---Dispute regarding correct sale consideration and statutory deposit---Trial Court rejected plaint on ground that plaintiff had not deposited actual one-third sale consideration and bank guarantee for remaining two-thirds---Appellate Court restored suit because substantial evidence had already been recorded and dispute regarding actual transactional value required determination---Supreme Court upheld restoration approach, observing that where sale consideration itself is disputed and evidence exists, matter should proceed for determination in accordance with Ss.24, 27 and 28 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987. (g) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Limits---Appellate Court’s lawful exercise of jurisdiction---High Court in revision set aside Appellate Court’s judgment and restored Trial Court’s rejection of plaint---Supreme Court held that once Appellate Court had lawfully exercised jurisdiction by remanding/restoring suit for proper determination, revisional Court had no room to substitute another view in absence of jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity---No ground was available for High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C. (h) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 185(2)(d)---Appeal as of right---Pre-emption matter---Appellant filed direct appeal before Supreme Court against High Court judgment allowing revision and restoring rejection of plaint---Supreme Court entertained appeal as of right and corrected High Court’s interference with Appellate Court’s lawful order. Disposition: Appeal was allowed; judgment of Peshawar High Court dated 23.02.2022 was set aside; matter was remanded to Trial Court to proceed with pre-emption suit in light of Supreme Court’s observations regarding genuine sale consideration, market value as exceptional mechanism, and statutory deposit; Trial Court was permitted to frame issue if deemed necessary and allow additional evidence, if any; trial was directed not to take more than three months.

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---- ----Art. 117---Burden of proof---Suit for declaration of ownership over alleged allotted land---Foundational allotment document not produced---Respondents/plaintiffs claimed title over 66 kanals 9 marlas on basis of alleged allotment in favour of respondent No.9 through R.L-II No.188, followed by Mutation No.1 and subsequent purchase by respondents No.1 to 8---Supreme Court held that entire claim rested upon R.L-II No.188, but said foundational document was never produced in evidence, nor proved through competent witness from concerned department---Mere oral assertions or mutation entries could not establish lawful allotment or title---Plaintiff must succeed on strength of his own case and not on weakness of defendant’s case. Cited Case: • Nasir Ali v. Muhammad Asghar 2022 SCMR 1054 (b) Evidence---- ----Document mentioned during cross-examination---No substitute for formal proof---Respondents argued that R.L-II No.188 stood admitted or established because it surfaced during cross-examination---Supreme Court rejected contention and held that mere mention of a document in cross-examination does not prove its existence, authenticity, contents or legality---Obligating statement in cross-examination may at best be treated as inferential evidence and cannot replace strict proof of foundational transaction. Cited Case: • Mst. Farrukh Jabin v. Maqbool Hussain through LRs and others PLD 2004 SC 499 (c) Revenue record---- ----Mutation entries---Fiscal nature---No conferment of title---Respondents relied upon Mutation No.1 and subsequent revenue entries to establish ownership---Supreme Court reiterated that mutation entries are maintained primarily for fiscal purposes and do not by themselves create, extinguish or confer title---Once mutation was disputed, party relying upon it was bound to prove original transaction giving rise thereto through lawful evidence---Mutation could not become substitute for unproved allotment record. (d) Government / State land---- ----TDA land---Alleged allotment by Settlement Department---Public property not to be lost through negligence or collusion of officials---Petitioners pleaded that suit land belonged to Thal Development Authority/Government and was not capable of lawful allotment by Settlement Department---Supreme Court held that even if subordinate officials failed to safeguard Government interest, their omission, negligence or possible connivance could not operate to deprive State of its property---Courts must exercise heightened vigilance in matters involving public land, alleged allotments, collusive decrees and engineered revenue entries. Cited Case: • Ashiq Hussain Shah v. Province of Punjab through Collector District, Attock and others 2003 SCMR 1840 (e) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---- ----First Sched., Art. 14---Suit to set aside act/order of Government officer---One year limitation---Respondents sought to question official orders passed in 1992 and 1995, including resumption order dated 17.10.1995, but instituted suit long thereafter---Supreme Court held that where relief is sought to set aside act or order of Government officer made in official capacity, limitation is one year from date of such act or order under Art.14 of First Schedule to Limitation Act, 1908---No plausible explanation for delay was furnished; claim was prima facie barred by limitation. Cited Case: • Muhammad Din v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner and others 2022 SCMR 1481 (f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S. 9---Civil Court jurisdiction after revenue hierarchy has decided matter---Scope limited to legality of orders, not full retrial---Matter had already travelled through revenue hierarchy, including orders of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Chief Settlement Commissioner and resumption in favour of Government---Supreme Court held that after statutory revenue remedies are exhausted, Civil Court may examine whether acts/orders of special tribunal were made in accordance with law, but cannot sit as appellate authority or conduct complete retrial on merits---Civil Court’s role is to examine legality, jurisdictional defect, mala fide, absence of evidence or lack of lawful authority on existing record. Cited Case: • Nausher v. Province of Punjab through District Collector, Khanewal and another PLD 2022 SC 699 (g) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XV, Rr. 3 & 4---Summary procedure---Challenge to orders of administrative/revenue tribunal---Supreme Court observed that in suits questioning legality of administrative/revenue orders, Civil Court may adopt summary procedure and treat complete record of proceedings before administrative tribunal as sufficient evidence---Parties should not ordinarily be allowed to reopen whole controversy through full-fledged civil trial with fresh oral and documentary evidence after revenue forums have already adjudicated matter. (h) Doctrine of election---- ----Exhaustion of statutory remedy before revenue hierarchy---Fresh civil suit to relitigate same controversy---Not permissible---Respondents, after revenue hierarchy decided matter against them, instituted fresh civil suit and led evidence as if dispute were being tried at first instance---Supreme Court held that such course was inconsistent with doctrine of election---A litigant who has consciously chosen and pursued one statutory remedy to its logical conclusion cannot seek another bite of cherry by reopening same matter through original civil jurisdiction merely because earlier result was unfavourable. Cited Cases: • Qazi Mumtaz Hussain and others v. Government of Sindh through Secretary Revenue and others 2025 SCMR 939 • Mir Mujib-Ur-Rehman Muhammad Hassani v. Returning Officer and others PLD 2020 SC 718 • Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. Devan Sugar Mills Limited PLD 2018 SC 828 (i) Public property---- ----Revenue entries, alleged allotments and collusive proceedings---Duty of Courts---Supreme Court emphasized that Courts are under solemn obligation to jealously guard public property and ensure that revenue entries, alleged allotments or fiscal mutations do not become instruments for unlawful deprivation of State land through defective proof, procedural laxity or collusive conduct---Parallel and protracted civil trials after statutory revenue adjudication undermine finality, encourage forum-shopping and burden civil courts with disputes falling essentially within revenue administration. (j) Civil revision---- ----High Court restoring Trial Court decree in favour of private claimants---Interference by Supreme Court---Trial Court decreed suit; Appellate Court set aside decree and dismissed suit; High Court in civil revision restored Trial Court decree---Supreme Court held that respondents failed to establish lawful title and valid allotment, foundational document remained unproved, mutation entries did not confer title, claim was hit by limitation, and fresh civil trial after revenue hierarchy was legally objectionable---High Court’s judgment could not be sustained. Disposition: Petition was converted into appeal and allowed; judgment of Lahore High Court dated 23.05.2014 was set aside; judgment and decree of Appellate Court dated 31.01.2006 was restored; suit filed by respondents No.1 to 8 was dismissed with costs throughout.

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---- ----Art. 115---Estoppel of tenant---Tenant denying title of landlord---Scope---Respondents instituted suit for recovery of produce and ejectment against petitioners, which was decreed by Trial Court and such decree was maintained by appellate, revisional and constitutional forums---Supreme Court held that where a person enters into possession as tenant, he is estopped from disputing title of landlord so long as he continues to retain possession under tenancy---Doctrine embodied in Art.115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is founded on public policy and prevents tenant from approbating and reprobating simultaneously---Tenant who subsequently asserts ownership rights cannot retain possession as tenant and, at same time, deny landlord’s title. Cited Case: • Mst. Seema Begum v. Muhammad Ishaq and others PLD 2009 SC 45 (b) Landlord and tenant---- ----Tenant asserting ownership/proprietary rights---Duty to first surrender possession---Tenant disputing proprietary title of landlord must first vacate and surrender possession and thereafter may contest his alleged title before competent forum---Law does not permit tenant to continue possession under tenancy while simultaneously setting up hostile title against landlord---If tenant ultimately succeeds in establishing his proprietary rights, he may enforce decree according to law with all its consequences. Cited Case: • Barkat Masih v. Manzoor Ahmad deceased through L.Rs. 2006 SCMR 1068 (c) Landlord and tenant---- ----Agreement to sell or alleged purchase by tenant---Effect on tenancy---Mere assertion of ownership on basis of agreement to sell or alleged acquisition of proprietary rights does not defeat maintainability of ejectment proceedings---Until tenant establishes his claim before competent Court, landlord continues to enjoy status of owner/landlord and relationship between parties remains regulated by tenancy---Tenant cannot legitimately resist ejectment proceedings merely on ground of alleged sale agreement or ownership claim. Cited Cases: • Mst. Seema Begum v. Muhammad Ishaq and others PLD 2009 SC 45 • Muhammad Nazir v. Saeed Subhani 2002 SCMR 1540 • Waheed Ullah v. Mst. Rehana Nasim and others 2004 SCMR 1568 (d) Ejectment proceedings---- ----Maintainability---Tenant claiming purchase of share/co-ownership---Effect---Ejectment proceedings remain maintainable even where tenant asserts that he has acquired ownership rights by purchase of a share in the property---Such assertion does not automatically terminate tenancy nor oust jurisdiction of forum deciding ejectment---Tenant’s plea of ownership cannot be made basis to resist ejectment where his possession qua demised premises remains that of tenant. Cited Cases: • Nazir Ahmad v. Mst. Sardar Bibi and others 1989 SCMR 913 • Ghulam Mustafa and others v. Mst. Muhammadi Begum and others 1991 SCMR 432 (e) Rent Controller / ejectment forum---- ----Limited jurisdiction---Complicated question of title---Proper remedy---Forum exercising limited jurisdiction in ejectment proceedings cannot adjudicate upon complicated questions of ownership title between parties---Where tenant claims to have purchased a share or acquired co-ownership, proper remedy is to seek partition through competent civil forum and not to resist ejectment proceedings by raising disputed title questions before ejectment forum. (f) Landlord and tenant---- ----Tenant claiming co-ownership by purchase of share---Proper recourse---Tenant claiming co-ownership cannot use such plea as shield against ejectment while retaining possession under tenancy---His remedy is to file suit for partition or appropriate proceedings before competent civil forum---Ejectment cannot be refused merely because tenant claims purchase of a share, where his position in respect of disputed premises remains that of tenant. Cited Case: • Ghulam Mustafa and others v. Mst. Muhammadi Begum and others 1991 SCMR 432 (g) Constitutional jurisdiction---- ----Concurrent findings---Interference by Supreme Court---Suit for recovery of produce and ejectment was decreed by Trial Court; appeal, revision, second revision and constitutional petition were dismissed---High Court correctly construed law relating to estoppel of tenant, surrender of possession, maintainability of ejectment proceedings and remedy of partition---No illegality or jurisdictional defect warranting interference by Supreme Court was shown---Petition was devoid of merit. Disposition: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.806-P of 2018 was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused; Supreme Court held that tenant asserting ownership/co-ownership must first surrender possession before contesting title, ejectment proceedings remain maintainable, and remedy for alleged co-ownership lies through partition before competent civil forum. CMA No.1877-P of 2018 became infructuous and was disposed of accordingly.

Summary: (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 ---- ----S. 13—Talb-i-Muwathibat—Immediacy and substance of declaration—Form not prescribed but intent must be unequivocal—Plaintiff claimed that upon receiving information of the sale at 07:00 a.m. on 07-06-2001 he made Talb-i-Muwathibat; informer (PW-3) stated he learnt of the sale at his uncle’s dera with 15–20 houses between that dera and plaintiff’s, indicating lapse of time before any intimation—Further, the plaintiff’s utterance, as proved (“… بس خواہش ظاہر کی …”), reflected only a desire to pre-empt, not a clear, immediate assertion of the right—Held, requirements of S. 13 were not met; mere expression of desire is insufficient and the immediacy stood compromised. (b) Pre-emption—Proof of talbs—Standard—Where evidence creates doubt about whether Talb-i-Muwathibat was promptly and properly made, the doubt enures to the benefit of the vendee—Plaintiff failed to discharge the onus to prove a valid and immediate Talb-i-Muwathibat on the facts. (c) Civil procedure—Concurrent findings—Interference—Where courts below misapplied S. 13 or relied on doubtful proof of the foundational talb, interference is warranted—Concurrent decrees for pre-emption set aside. Held, that the plaintiff did not prove a valid Talb-i-Muwathibat; benefit of doubt goes to the vendees. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; judgments and decrees of the courts below set aside; pre-emption suit dismissed, no order as to costs.

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) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987 — Ss. 2(d) & 5 — “Sale” and “exchange” — Distinction — Burden of proof — Right of pre-emption — Scope. Under S. 5 of the Act, the right of pre-emption arises only in the case of a sale, defined in S. 2(d) as a permanent transfer of ownership of immovable property in exchange for valuable consideration, excluding agricultural land exchanged for better management. Where the vendee claimed that the impugned transaction was an exchange, the pre-emptor was required to establish, through cogent evidence, that the exchange was a disguised sale intended to defeat his pre-emptive right. — Held, that the burden of proof lay squarely on the pre-emptor; failure of the defendant to establish bona fide exchange did not, by itself, convert the transaction into a sale. The mere allegation that the mutation was in substance a sale, unsupported by evidence of price or consideration, was insufficient to attract pre-emption. — Trial Court and High Court misdirected themselves by focusing on the defendant’s evidence rather than examining whether the plaintiff discharged his burden. — Principle reaffirmed that right of pre-emption, being a restriction on ownership and a clog on alienation, must be strictly construed. (b) Pre-emption — Exchange — Determination — Question of fact and law — Requirement of pleading and proof. Whether an ostensible exchange in mutation was in reality a sale is a mixed question of law and fact which must be properly pleaded with material facts in the plaint and proved by substantive evidence. The plaintiff’s omission to deny that the transaction was made for better management, as recited in the mutation, coupled with absence of proof of price payment or promise thereof, rendered the plea of sale unsubstantiated. (c) Evidence — Mutation — Testimony of Patwari — Effect. Patwari (PW-2), during examination-in-chief, unequivocally confirmed that the transaction recorded in mutation No. 3437, dated 05-11-2008, was an exchange. His testimony supported the defendant’s stance and demolished the plaintiff’s assertion of sale. (d) Pre-emption — Nature and limitations. Right of pre-emption is not a matter of grace but a statutory right exercisable strictly within the parameters prescribed by law. It cannot be extended to transactions other than sale, nor can courts infer sale from ambiguous circumstances. When the evidence admits of multiple interpretations, the one that does not fetter the owner’s freedom of transfer should prevail. (e) Result — Decrees of courts below — Concurrent findings — Interference by Supreme Court. Concurrent findings of the trial, appellate, and High Courts were based on misreading of evidence and misapplication of law; therefore, Supreme Court rightly set aside those decrees, holding that the transaction was a genuine exchange, not a sale, and the plaintiff had no right of pre-emption. Disposition. Petitions converted into appeals. — CPLA No. 4649/2022 (by pre-emptor) dismissed. — CPLA No. 561/2023 (against pre-emptor) allowed. — Plaintiff’s suit dismissed. — No order as to costs. Held: Transaction held to be an exchange — no right of pre-emption available — appeals allowed accordingly.