Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- S. 9 & S. 42 ---- Declaratory suit --- Inheritance claim based on benami transaction ---- Maintainability and burden of proof ---- Scope Plaintiffs, the daughters of the deceased Nasiruddin Ansari, filed a declaratory suit claiming that two properties—House No. C-35, Block-9, Works Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi and House No. A-153, Block-L, North Nazimabad, Karachi—though titled in the name of their mother, were benami assets purchased by their late father. They sought declaration of benami ownership and their share in inheritance. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish the benami nature of the transactions. Supreme Court observed that the assertion of benami ownership was based on inferences and lacked documentary or credible oral evidence. The mere assertion in the plaint without explaining the motive or mechanics of the alleged benami arrangement was insufficient. Held, that for a transaction to be declared benami, the burden lies heavily on the party making such assertion, which must be proven through unimpeachable evidence, and not merely on suspicion. Key indicators such as possession of title documents, financial sources, property control, enjoyment of usufruct, and conduct of parties must align to prove a benami transaction. In the present case, there was no evidence that the deceased husband ever disputed the ownership of the properties during his lifetime, nor was there any express or implied agreement to hold the properties benami. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. Cited Cases: • Ch. Ghulam Rasool v. Nusrat Rasool PLD 2008 SC 146 • Abdul Majeed v. Amir Muhammad 2005 SCMR 577 • Pether Perumal v. Muniandy ILR 35 Cal 551 (PC) • Gurkaran v. Shella AIR 1918 PC 140 • 4 BLC 17 • Rotofrusy on Civil Law and Rulings, Vol. 1, p. 115 (b) Islamic Law ---- Inheritance --- Challenge to mother’s exclusive ownership by legal heirs (children) after father’s death ---- Requirements for establishing ostensible ownership Under Islamic inheritance principles, the ownership of a spouse cannot be presumed to be ostensible or fictitious merely due to the relationship or timing of purchase. Supreme Court held that once a wife acquires property in her name, it cannot be presumed benami unless a clear agreement or arrangement exists between the actual payer and the named owner. Even where purchase funds might be linked to the husband, absent a specific agreement and evidence that the wife held the property for the husband's benefit, children cannot challenge the title decades later without conclusive proof. Held, that silence or inaction of the deceased during his lifetime regarding the ownership of the properties is a strong indicator of intent to transfer beneficial ownership to the wife. Properties were acquired in 1960 and 1970, and the father passed away in 1985 without raising any dispute. As such, challenge by legal heirs in 1993 lacked legal foundation and was rightly rejected. (c) Benami Transactions ---- Concept, essential elements, and evidentiary burden ---- Source of funds not conclusive ---- Judicial principles restated A benami transaction implies that the property is held by an ostensible owner for the benefit of the person who funded it. However, the source of funds, while relevant, is not conclusive to prove benami character. The Court reiterated that essential conditions include: (i) an express or implied agreement between the real and ostensible owner for the benefit of the former, and (ii) proof that the transaction was directly between the real owner and the seller. Additionally, corroborative factors such as who retained control, paid taxes, and enjoyed possession are critical. Held, that suspicion or delayed assertions by heirs are insufficient to displace documented title, particularly where the alleged real owner (deceased husband) never questioned the wife's ownership during his lifetime. Disposition: Appeal dismissed. No interference warranted in the judgment of the High Court.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: –––Art. 13(a), 199––– Double jeopardy–––Scope–––Maintainability of writ petition–––Petitioner, a retired army officer, challenged notice under S.22(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017, alleging the Subject House to be benami property–––Petitioner was earlier tried under NAB Ordinance, 1999, convicted by Accountability Court, but subsequently acquitted by the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court affirmed the acquittal–––Held, principle of double jeopardy under Art.13(a) of the Constitution not attracted–––Offence under NAB Ordinance (holding assets beyond known means) and offence under Benami Transactions Act (holding property as beneficial owner in name of another) are distinct in nature, scope, and legal consequences–––Same act may constitute different offences under different statutes if elements differ–––Petition dismissed. Cited Cases: • PLD 2024 SC 795 • 2014 SCMR 1376 (b) Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017: –––Ss. 2(8), 22(2), 3, 4 & 5––– Show cause notice regarding benami property–––Challenge to maintainability–––Petitioner purchased property in 1999 through General Power of Attorney and was issued a show cause notice in 2022 under the Act of 2017, alleging it to be benami property–––Held, the Act of 2017 has prospective application and cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions executed prior to its enactment–––However, initiation of proceedings under S.22(2) based on current possession and beneficial ownership does not per se violate retrospective bar–––Respondent relied on ongoing beneficial use and financial declarations post-enactment–––High Court declined to entertain the writ petition at show cause stage–––Held further, petitioner had effective alternate remedy before Adjudicating Authority under the Act and had failed to avail the same–––Writ petition not maintainable in presence of alternate statutory remedy. ----Cited Cases: • PLD 2022 ISB 371 • PLD 2017 ISB 375 • 2022 SCMR 842 • 2016 SCMR 842 • 2008 SCMR 308 • 1993 SCMR 29 (c) Administrative Law: –––Public functionaries–––Exercise of discretion–––Jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution–––Scope–––Where a statutory forum exists for resolution of disputes, writ jurisdiction ordinarily not exercised–––Petitioner bypassed remedy under Benami Transactions Act, 2017 by approaching High Court directly–––Held, constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent proper legal channels, particularly where factual determination and adjudication is required–––Petition dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) —Ss. 115, 2(2)—Succession—Administration petition—Conversion into civil suit—Validity—Stranger challenging title of deceased—Maintainability—Principles— High Court set aside trial court’s order converting an administration petition into a civil suit at the instance of a stranger to the estate (i.e., nephew of the deceased)—Held, objections raised by a person who is neither a legal heir nor a legatee cannot transform an administration petition into adversarial proceedings—Disputes raised by such stranger fall outside the scope of administration and must be adjudicated in separate civil proceedings—Conversion of petition was contrary to binding precedent in PLD 2011 Karachi 83 (Ghazala Zakir case). (b) Succession—Administration of estate—Scope of court’s jurisdiction—Test for inclusion of property disputes— Court reiterated settled test: if the determination of a property dispute affects inter se rights of legal heirs, it may be decided in administration proceedings; if it only affects third-party claims or strangers, such dispute must be resolved separately—Objector’s allegation of deceased being benamidar of his own father, without any prior legal action during deceased’s lifetime, held insufficient to defeat or delay administration process. (c) Benami Transactions—Claim of benami ownership posthumously—Delay and laches—Effect— Where the alleged real owner (Mumtaz Ali Khan) never asserted title or took legal action during his lifetime, and no legal proceedings were initiated by his heirs for decades, subsequent claims of benami interest by nephew held belated and to be adjudicated separately—Challenge rejected in administration petition. (d) Stamp Duty & Legal Dues—Release of title documents—Preconditions— Court observed that original title documents could not be released to legal heirs until payment of all dues including stamp duty, transfer fees, and related charges—Claim of ownership based on an agreement coupled with interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872 would not override legal obligations for payment of government dues. Disposition: Appeal Allowed—Impugned order converting administration petition into civil suit set aside—Objector declared a stranger to the estate—Right to initiate independent proceedings reserved—Nazir directed to inquire into status of title chain and execution proceedings for issuance of Letters of Administration. ----- Cited Law / Precedents: Muhammad Zahid v. Mst. Ghazala Zakir, PLD 2011 Karachi 83 Contract Act, 1872, S. 202 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.VII, R.11; Ss. 115, 2(2) Succession Act, 1925 (implied for administration proceedings)

Summary: Background:The case involves Civil Revision No. 56505/2022, where Farrukh Shahzad challenges the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, which decreed in favor of Maqbool Hussain Awan. Initially, Awan filed a suit claiming ownership and possession of specific properties, alleging the properties were transferred to Shahzad as a Benamidar. The trial court dismissed the suit, but on appeal, the Appellate Court reversed this decision based on additional evidence submitted by Awan. Shahzad appealed this decision on several grounds, including the improper admission of additional evidence at the appellate level.---Issues:Whether the appellate court was justified in allowing the submission of additional evidence by Awan.Whether the appellate court's decision to reverse the trial court's judgment was based on a correct interpretation and application of the law concerning Benami transactions and additional evidence.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The High Court held that the appellate court improperly allowed additional evidence without sufficient justification as required by law. The court emphasized that additional evidence should only be allowed under exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case. The court restored the trial court's judgment, dismissing Awan's claims, based on the following:The appellate court failed to apply the legal standards governing the admission of additional evidence correctly.The additional evidence was not inevitable for just decision-making and was not beyond the control of Awan during the initial trial.The appellate court did not provide Shahzad an opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the additional evidence.The evidence regarding the Benami transaction and the relationship between the parties was insufficient to overturn the trial court's findings.The High Court set aside the appellate court's judgment, thereby upholding the trial court's dismissal of Awan's suit.---Citations/Precedents:Shamshad Bibi & others v. Riasat Ali & others (PLD 2023 SC 643): Outlines the conditions under which additional evidence may be permitted at the appellate stage.State Bank of Pakistan through Governor and another v. Imtiaz Ali Khan and others (2012 SCMR 280): Discusses the duty of the court to address the issues of evidence and limitation independently.Rehmat Din vs. Mirza Nasir Abbas (2007 SCMR 1560): Highlights the principles concerning the vigilance of parties in producing evidence.Muhammad Yousaf and others v. Muhammad Ishaq Rana (deceased) through LRs and others (2023 SCMR 572): Guidelines for cases involving Benami transactions, emphasizing the need to prove a clear agreement and understanding between the real and ostensible owner.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed an appeal against an order dismissing his application for an interim injunction in a suit for declaration, cancellation of ownership, and recovery of possession through partition. The appellant and the respondents are real brothers, and the appellant claimed that the properties in question were purchased with funds contributed by all brothers but registered in the name of respondent No. 1. The appellant sought an interim injunction to prevent respondent No. 1 from altering or alienating the properties. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant is entitled to an interim injunction to restrain respondent No. 1 from changing the character or alienating the properties in question. 2- Whether the properties were purchased jointly by the brothers with the funds provided by them and if respondent No. 1 is merely an ostensible/benami owner. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the appellant is not entitled to an interim injunction at this stage. The following reasons were provided: The appellant has the burden of proving that the properties were purchased with joint funds and that respondent No. 1 is an ostensible/benami owner. This burden must be discharged through cogent evidence. The appellant needs to demonstrate the motive for the benami transaction, the source of funds, possession of the properties, conduct of the parties regarding the properties, and possession of title documents. The affidavit dated 20.10.2004, relied upon by the appellant, was yet to be produced in evidence and its veracity was yet to be determined. There was no documentation or averment in the suit to substantiate the joint contribution of funds for the purchase of the properties. The superior courts have generally been reluctant to grant interim injunctions in suits seeking declarations of benami ownership. The doctrine of lis pendens adequately protects the appellant during the pendency of the suit. As a result, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the trial court was instructed to proceed with the suit uninfluenced by the observations made in the appeal judgment. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Ali Vs. Mahnga Khan (2004 SCMR 1111) Mst. Haleema Vs. Muhammad Kassam (1999 MLD 2934) Muhammad Ibrahim Vs. Mst. Naseem Khushi (2009 MLD 1031) Khurram Zafar Vs. Mst. Sarah (2021 YLR 91)

Summary: Summons to give statement and furnish affidavit, regarding suspected Benami Properties, are declared without lawful authority. Provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017 interpreted.

Summary: Benami Transactions---appeal allowed--The case revolved around a dispute concerning land transfer. The appellant claimed that a compromise and statement were made before the Trial Court in a prior case titled "Allah Bakhsh versus Abdul Hameed" on 11.03.2002, in which two acres of land were to be transferred to each of the three brothers, including the appellant. The defendant, Abdul Hameed, denied this compromise and statement and refused to transfer the land.The trial court dismissed the appellant's suit for declaration, a decision upheld by the district court and the Lahore High Court. However, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts had not properly considered the evidence, including a registered document (Hibba Nama) and its reference to the earlier compromise. The Supreme Court noted that the presumption of correctness attached to registered documents, along with the absence of any challenge to the document's authenticity, supported the appellant's case.The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant's suit was competent under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act for a declaration of title. It set aside the judgments of the lower courts and decreed the suit in favor of the appellant. The appeal was allowed.

Summary: Discussion on Section 43 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 2017

Summary: The case alleges corruption and corrupt practices against Shahbaz Sharif and his family members. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) claims that Shahbaz Sharif and his associates acquired assets disproportionate to their known sources of income through fictitious transactions and money laundering. The dissenting judges identified three points of disagreement:a) Whether Shahbaz Sharif is entitled to post-arrest bail concerning the allegations of assets beyond means and money laundering.b) Whether Shahbaz Sharif is entitled to post-arrest bail on medical grounds.c) Whether Shahbaz Sharif is entitled to post-arrest bail due to delays in concluding the trial.The case presents extensive evidence regarding alleged financial irregularities, including suspicious transactions, disproportionate assets, and involvement in money laundering schemes. Various legal precedents and principles related to corruption, benami transactions, and burden of proof are cited throughout the summary. The judges ultimately grant Shahbaz Sharif post-arrest bail, noting the absence of direct evidence linking him to the alleged crimes and the possibility of acquittal. They emphasize the presumption of innocence and the need for concrete evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision is made despite dissenting opinions, citing legal precedent and the need for fairness in the judicial process. PLD 2002 SC 546, Ch. Zulfiqar Ali versus The State: This case likely deals with legal principles related to bail or criminal proceedings and may provide guidance on similar matters. PLD 2019 SC 112, Tallat Ishaq versus National Accountability Bureau through Chairman, and others: This case likely discusses issues related to accountability and may have relevance to the present case regarding the National Accountability Bureau's actions. W.P. No.7425/2021, Hamza Shahbaz Sharif Vs. NAB: This case likely pertains to legal issues involving the National Accountability Bureau and individuals seeking legal remedies against its actions. PLD 2020 Lah. 205, Maryam Nawaz Sharif versus Chairman, NAB and 2 others: This case likely addresses legal matters related to accountability and the National Accountability Bureau's powers. PLD 2020 Sindh 365(372), Agha Massihuddin Khan Durrani and others versus Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad and others: This case may involve legal principles relevant to accountability and the actions of the National Accountability Bureau. PLD 2017 Lahore 23, Brig. (R) Imtiaz Ahmed versus The STATE: This case likely addresses legal issues related to bail or criminal proceedings and may provide guidance on similar matters. PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34, Tariq Bashir and 5 others versus THE STATE: This case likely pertains to legal principles related to bail and the factors considered in granting bail. These legal precedents serve as guidelines or references for the judges to consider while deliberating on the case of Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif and his petition for post-arrest bail. They help establish a framework for understanding legal principles and determining appropriate actions in the present case.

Summary: The constitutional petition challenges an order dated 21.01.2021, issued by respondent No.4, dismissing the petitioner's objections to a show cause notice (SCN) dated 04.12.2020. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P. No.3305/2021, which was disposed of on 19.01.2021, directing respondent No.4 to decide the objections against the SCN.The SCN was issued under section 22 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017, alleging petitioner No.1 as the Benamidar of petitioner No.2, the father of petitioner No.1.The primary contention is based on an amendment to the Act through Ordinance No. XX of 2019, adding section 2(31) defining 'whistleblower.' The petitioner argues that a complaint or information can only be filed by a whistleblower if the alleged benami property relates to offenses listed under section 2(31) of the Act. The petitioner references several court decisions to support this argument: Habib Bank Ltd. V. WRSM Trading Company, LLC. (2018 CLD 1282),Tanveer Asim V. Pakistan Institute of Fashion and Design, Lahore (2020 PLC (C.S.) 1537),Dilawar Hussain and others v. Province of Sindh and others (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 514),Mst. Fehmida Begum V. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and 6 others (PLD 2000 Lahore 602),Messrs Forbes Forbes & Campbell, Co. through Company Secretary V. Messrs Ebrahim Trust through Managing Trustee and 2 others (PLD 2010 Karachi 170),Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance and others V. M/s Noori Trading Corporation (Private) Limited and 14 others (1992 SCMR 710),Ehsan-ul-Haq V. MCB Bank Limited through Manager (2016 CLD 1874) However, the court concludes that the petitioner's interpretation of section 2(31) is flawed and bordering on absurdity. The initiating officer's jurisdiction under section 22 of the Act is not dependent on the nature of offenses mentioned under section 2(31). The court emphasized that the Act's purpose would be defeated if whistleblowers were required to determine the relation of alleged benami property to specific offenses before filing complaints. The court dismissed the petition, stating that no jurisdictional defect or patent illegality exists, and interference through constitutional jurisdiction would prejudice the appeal process provided under section 47 of the Act.