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) 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) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 11---Res judicata---Applicability---Petitioner seeking to reopen issue of respondent's paternity and entitlement to inherit legacy of her father despite earlier adjudication regarding paternity up to the Supreme Court---Legality---Constructive res judicata---Scope---Grounds available but not taken in former suit deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue---Judgment in rem and in personam---A judgment on paternity, being both in personam and in rem, operates as res judicata on status and title, binding even those claiming under a party to the earlier suit---In the present case the petitioner sought to challenge inheritance mutation and deprive the respondent of her share---Primary issue in the present case was as to "whether the petitioner could re-litigate/agitate the question of the respondent's parentage and her entitlement to inherit from her father, despite that matter already having been conclusively decided in earlier proceedings up to the Supreme Court"?---Held: The submission of the cognovit by the respondent No. 2 raised serious question of maintainability vis-a-vis the application of res judicata---Undeniably, he was the main defendant in the former suit---It was he who disputed the parentage of the respondent No. 1, and to reiterate, he unsuccessfully contested the same issue till the Supreme Court---The materiality of this admission lay in the fact that he was the real maternal uncle of the petitioner---In this perspective, perhaps there was no need to say who was standing behind the petitioner in the background---Indeed, the cognovit stood as more than a mere admission---It constituted a tacit alignment with the petitioner's position, thereby effectively placing the respondent No. 2 in the shoes of the petitioner---By supporting the petitioner's plea, he then, by implication, challenged, in fact, re-agitated the parentage of the respondent No. 1, which, as an issue directly and substantially involved in the former suit, had been determined by all the Courts concurrently---Principles of applicability of constructive res judicata were squarely attracted to the present case---It was fully established on all canons of evidence in the former suit that the respondent No. 1 was the daughter of late "AH"---Even Mst. "HJ", mother of petitioner, who, too, was alive at that time, did not raise any such objection---It was to be noted that the paternity was never challenged in the lifetime of "AH"---Another key aspect of the case was the legal character of the earlier judgment concerning the paternity of the respondent No. 1, which partook both of a judgment in personam and in rem---While a judgment in personam bound the parties to the suit, a judgment in rem conclusively determined the legal status of a person or thing and was binding erga omnes, provided it was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction---The adjudication in the former suit, upheld by the highest judicial fora, directly and conclusively determined the respondent No. 1's parentage as the biological daughter of "AH" and Mst. "MJ", an issue that was central to the dispute and decided after full contest---Although the petitioner was not a party to that litigation, he claimed under "AH" the same title as the respondent No. 2 did in the earlier suit-and was therefore bound by the earlier determination---Consequently, the former judgment operated as res judicata, both as to status and title, precluding the present challenge---High Court emphasized that the present case had serious implications for women's right to inheritance---It had been fully established from the record that in the former suit, the respondent No. 2 tried to deprive the respondent No. 1 in the inheritance of her father by fraudulently obtaining from her a sale deed which she challenged before the court and obtained a decree in her favour---The respondent No. 2 contested the suit till the Supreme Court, dragging her in litigation till the final Court---Now, in the present suit, he again approached the High Court being hands in glove with the petitioner, to re-agitate the issue which was deemed to have been taken on the doctrine of constructive res judicata---Present case was a typical example of creating a pretext to deprive a woman of her property rights in the inheritance of her parents---Higher Courts, particularly, the Supreme Court consistently condemned the practice of depriving female legal heirs of their rightful shares in inheritance, as ordained by Shari'ah---Petitioner's suit was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata---The concurrent findings of the Courts below dismissing the petitioner's claim were affirmed---Present suit constituted an impermissible attempt to reopen issues conclusively determined till the Supreme Court---The judgments and orders of the Courts below, being well-reasoned, did not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction---Consequently, present petition, being devoid of merit, was dismissed in limini. Mst. Parveen (deceased) through L.Rs. v. M. Pervaiz and others 2022 SCMR 64 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 11, 'Explanation IV'---Constructive res judicata---Principles stated---Explanation IV to S. 11 of C.P.C. postulates that any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in a subsequent suit---Five principles of constructive res judicata as laid down by the Supreme Court are that: (i) The matter is directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly or substantially in issue either in actually or constructively in the former suit; (ii) The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or anyone of them claim; (iii) The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit; (iv) The Court which decided the former suit must have been a Court competent to try the subsequent suit in which such issue is subsequently raised; (v) The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the Court in the first suit. Province of Punjab v. Ibrahim and Sons 2000 SCMR 1172 rel. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 11---Constructive res judicata---Principle---Scope---A party cannot circumvent a final judgment by introducing new grounds or claims in a subsequent suit which were available but not asserted earlier---Even if certain questions were not raised in the earlier proceedings, the omission to do so attracted the principle of constructive res judicata---Where the parties had the opportunity to assert all available grounds in a prior suit but failed to do so, such unraised grounds shall be deemed to have been heard and decided, and the parties would be precluded from agitating the same in subsequent litigation. Ch. Maqbool Raza v. Ashfaq Ahmad 2013 YLR 407; Khushi Muhammad v. Province of Punjab 1999 SCMR 1633; Amanul Mulk v. Ghafoor-ur-Rehman 1997 SCMR 1796 and Ghulam Akbar Lang v. Deewan Ashiq Hussain Bukhari and others 2012 SCMR 366 rel. (d) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Paternity, challenge to---Legality---Throwing a legal challenge to the paternity of someone is not an assertion of one's own legal character in terms of S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1887---A person whose legal character, including paternity, is denied, can file a suit to assert entitlement. Munir Hussain and others v. Riffat Shamim and others 2023 SCMR 6; Mst. Laila Qayyum v. Fawad Qayyum and others PLD 2019 SC 449; Rehmatullah Khan v. Government of Pakistan 2003 SCMR 50; Ghazala Tehsin Zohra v. Ghulam Dastagir Khan PLD 2015 SC 327 and Salman Akram Raja v. Government of Punjab 2013 SCMR 203 rel. Deokali v. Kedar Nath ILR 39 Cal. 704, 709; Khanchand v. Jacobabad Municipality AIR 1946 Sindh 98; Abdur Rahman Bhuyia v. Commission of Narayanganj Municipality PLD 1959 Dacca 5; Abdul Rahman Mobashir v. Amir Ali Shah PLD 1978 Lah. 113; Daw Pone v. Ma Hnin May AIR 1941 Rangood 220, 221 and Abdul Karim v. Sarray Begum AIR 1945 Lah. 266 ref. (e) Judgment--- ----Judgment in rem and judgment in personam---Scope---Distinction---Judgment in rem-determines the status of a thing or a person and is conclusive against the world at large---Judgment in personam binds specific parties to the litigation. Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Karachi International Container Terminal Limited, (K.I.C.T.) 2010 CLC 1666 ref. Majid Karim for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th May, 2025.

Summary: (a) Contract Act, 1872 —- Ss. 2(g), 13, 14 — Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(2)(d) Contract executed under police custody — Validity — Free consent — Burden of proof — Legal consequence — Agreement dated 04.12.2015 executed by Altaf Hussain, predecessor of respondents No.1 to 6, while in police custody in connection with FIR No.161/2015 — Held, transaction was executed under circumstances of duress and lacked free consent, rendering the agreement void under S. 2(g) of the Contract Act, 1872 — Under Ss. 13 and 14 of the Act, consent must be free and not induced by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake — Agreement was executed while Altaf Hussain was under arrest, in physical custody of law enforcement, and prior to his grant of post-arrest bail — Burden lay on the appellants to prove that transaction was entered into voluntarily, which they failed to discharge — No evidence produced to show that consideration was paid or benefit received by respondents — Held, where an agreement is executed in custody and there is dominance of will, such consent is presumed vitiated. Cited Cases: • Mst. Hamida Begum v. Mst. Murad Begum (PLD 1975 SC 624) • Pakcom Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 44) • Pak Gulf Construction Co. v. MCB, Quetta Branch (2001 SCMR 265) (b) Evidence Law — Coercion — Undue Influence — Legal burden — Contractual presumption Presumption against voluntariness — Agreement by accused while in custody — Evidentiary threshold — Held, a person in police custody is presumed to be in a vulnerable state and particularly susceptible to coercion or undue influence — Where a contract is executed under such circumstances, courts must scrutinize the existence of free consent and consensus ad idem — Unless the party relying on the document proves that the transaction was fair, informed, and voluntary, such contracts are presumed invalid — No material produced by the appellants to prove that transaction was not influenced by duress or coercion — Agreement dated 04.12.2015 was therefore rightly held void. (c) Agency — Termination on death — General Power of Attorney — Posthumous execution — Legal validity Termination of agency on death — Effect of acts performed after death of principal — General Power of Attorney in favour of respondents No.1 to 6 stood terminated upon the death of Salma Sultana on 13.01.1999 — Mutation No.926 and all subsequent transactions based on agency post-death were void ab initio — Held, any action taken under terminated authority has no legal effect — High Court rightly restored Mutation No.428 and cancelled void mutation based on invalid agreement. Statutory Reference: Agency under general principles of the Contract Act and civil jurisprudence is extinguished upon death of principal. (d) Civil Procedure — Challenge to mutation — Delay — Legal consequence Timing of challenge — Mutation challenged within limitation — Delay not fatal — Appellant contended that challenge to Mutation No.926 was delayed and hence invalid — Held, suit was filed within prescribed limitation period — Delay in filing not sufficient to cure an inherently void transaction — Mere lapse of time does not validate a void agreement — Trial and appellate courts rightly found agreement void; High Court lawfully reversed lower findings based on legal scrutiny and evidentiary evaluation. (e) Constitution of Pakistan — Art. 185(2)(d) Appeal to Supreme Court — Scope of interference in concurrent factual findings — Standard of review — Held, where High Court judgment is based on correct legal principles and appreciation of evidence, Supreme Court does not interfere under Art. 185(2)(d) — Findings of High Court that agreement was void due to duress and agency had terminated were supported by record — Civil appeal dismissed. Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed. Judgment of High Court upheld. Agreement dated 04.12.2015 declared void and Mutation No.926 set aside; original Mutation No.428 restored.

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: (Against the judgment dated 17.05.2012, passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in C.R. No. 53 of 2002). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962), S. 2-A---Suit for declaration and injunction---Mutation of inheritance---Limited estate---Owner through will---Appellants / plaintiffs claimed share in suit property on the plea that respondents / defendant had become owners on the basis of will executed in favour of their predecessor-in-interest, in year 1934---Suit was decreed in favour of appellants / plaintiffs but Lower Appellate Court and High Court dismissed the suit---Validity---Creation of life interests for enjoyment of usufruct of properties upon death of a male holder were done away with and were subjected to Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962---By virtue of section 2-A of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 limited estates had been done away with retrospective application of such provision---Predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants became the absolute owner of property in question---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by High Court---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Mullah's Principles of Mohammaden Law by Mr. Justice Hidayatullah; Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman, A Code of Muslim Personal Law, Volume II, page 196; Haider v. Murad PLD 2012 SC 501 and Mst. Farida Khatoon v. Dr. Masood Ahmed Butt 2009 SCMR 464 ref. Sohail Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3). Date of hearing: 20th February, 2025.

Summary: (a) Gift—Presumption of good faith in transactions between husband and wife—Burden of proof ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129 ---- In transactions involving husband and wife, particularly where the wife is a housewife with limited exposure to financial and legal matters, the presumption of good faith in human transactions is reinforced. In the present case, where a husband challenged the validity of a gift mutation in favor of his wife, alleging fraud, the burden of proof rested heavily on him to establish the particulars of the alleged fraud. Mere allegations without disclosing specific details such as time, place, and manner of fraud were held insufficient to shift the burden onto the wife. (b) Gift by husband to wife—Standard of proof—Onus of proof in cases involving housewives ---- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI R. 4 ---- A wife, especially one who is a housewife, is not required to prove a gift from her husband with the same standard of proof as other donees, given the social context where inter-spousal gifts are presumed to be made in good faith. The burden of disproving the transaction and proving fraud rested with the husband, who failed to provide sufficient particulars as required under O. VI R. 4, CPC, which mandates the specific pleading of fraud and misrepresentation. (c) Fraud—Pleading requirements—Non-disclosure of particulars—Effect ---- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI R. 4 ---- Allegations of fraud must be specifically pleaded, with particulars such as time, place, and nature of misrepresentation. In the absence of such details, the plea of fraud is legally untenable. In the instant case, the husband alleged that the wife fraudulently obtained a gift mutation with the connivance of revenue officials but failed to provide specific details, rendering his claim legally deficient. (d) Revenue record—Presumption of truth—Gift mutation—Challenge by donor ---- Land Revenue Act ---- Entries in revenue records enjoy a presumption of truth, albeit rebuttable. A donor who voluntarily executes a gift and allows it to be recorded in revenue records cannot later challenge it on vague allegations of fraud without producing substantial evidence. In this case, once the gift mutation was recorded, the husband could not successfully challenge it without strong, compelling evidence of fraud, which he failed to provide. (e) Validity of oral gift—Divestment of possession by husband in favor of wife—Requirement ---- Islamic Law ---- Under Islamic law, when a husband gifts property to his wife, actual divestment of possession is not a strict requirement, as long as the wife holds the property through the husband. The wife’s possession through her husband is deemed constructive possession, sufficient to fulfill the legal requirement of a valid gift. (f) Necessary parties—Non-joinder of revenue officials in fraud allegations—Effect ---- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I R. 10 ---- Where a party alleges fraud in collusion with government officials, failure to implead the alleged officials as necessary parties renders the suit defective. In this case, the husband alleged that the wife conspired with revenue officials to fraudulently obtain the gift mutation but failed to implead the revenue officials, rendering the suit not maintainable in light of Sikandar Hayat v. Sughran Bibi (2020 SCMR 214). (g) Appellate Court judgment—Revisional jurisdiction of High Court—Scope of interference ---- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 ---- Although appellate judgments are generally given preference over trial court decisions, the High Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is duty-bound to rectify legal errors. In this case, the Appellate Court erred by shifting the burden of proof onto the wife without first requiring the husband to establish his claim of fraud, making its judgment perverse and legally unsustainable. Disposition: Civil revision allowed. The judgment and decree of the Appellate Court were set aside, and the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the husband’s suit was restored.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VI, R. 17 & O. XXIII---Partition Act (IV of 1893), S.4---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 120---Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 172---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 8, 54---Suits for declaration, perpetual-cum-mandatory injunction, restoration of possession, and partition---Technical defects, removal of---Substantial justice---Scope---Both suits were decreed by the trial court through consolidated judgment and decrees, but the appeals preferred by the respondents were accepted by the appellate court on the grounds that the first suit was not maintainable due to being barred by time and that correction of revenue records fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue courts per S. 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 and the second suit was dismissed as the petitioner did not seek partition of the entire property or implead the entire proprietary body, rendering it not maintainable---Validity---In the first suit, the petitioner sought not only declaration, permanent-cum-mandatory injunction, and possession, but also challenged the validity of the mutation as illegal and without bearing on their rights, thus falling outside the purview of S. 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967---Second suit could not be dismissed for partial partition or non-impleadment of the entire proprietary body, as the entire property and necessary parties could be included in the larger interest of justice rather than dismissing it on technical grounds---If the suit was defective, the law provided a mechanism for removal thereof under O. VI, R. 17 and O. XXIII, C.P.C---No suit should be dismissed for misjoinder or non-joinder of parties---Courts are mandated to adjudicate the matter in dispute based on the facts and rights of the parties involved---High Court, without addressing the merits of the case, set aside the appellate court's findings and remitted the matter to the Trial Court with directions to allow the petitioner to remedy the technical defects---Civil revision was disposed of accordingly. Mst. Zohran Bibi and others v. Ghulam Qadir and others 2022 MLD 250; Chaudhary Muhammad Munir and others v. Election Tribunal Mandi Bahauddin and others 2009 SCMR 1368 and Mazullah Khan v. Mst. Taraja Begum and others 2020 YLR 2206 rel. Muhammad Alam Khan and Atta Ullah Khan (Tangi) for Petitioner. Aqil Muhammad Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd December, 2024.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code ( V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Plaintiffs challenged the legality / authenticity of a number of mutations, however, their plaint was rejected under O.VII, R.11 C.P.C.---Defendants filed revision as the Appellate Court set-aside the plaint-rejecting order passed by the Trial Court---Validity---Admittedly, both the parties were siblings inter se and dispute pertained to legacy of their father---Whether the disputed gift mutation(s) were validly made or the same was the result of any fraud, were the questions, which would be determined by the Trial Court after recording of pro and contra evidence---Thus, rejecting such a plaint at the initial stage would not meet the ends of justice---High Court maintained the impugned order and judgment passed by the Appellate/ District Court being in accordance with law---Revision filed by the defendants, being merit-less, was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code ( V of 1908)--- ----O.VII, R. 11---Litigation between legal heirs---Rejection of plaint---Limitation---Scope---Plaintiffs challenged the legality / authenticity of a number of mutations, however, their plaint was rejected on ground of limitation, under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.---Defendants filed revision as the Appellate Court set-aside the plaint-rejecting order passed by the Trial Court---Validity---Principle of limitation law, acquiescence as well as estoppel cannot be strictly adhered to in the cases of legal heirs who are deriving their title(s) from a common predecessor------High Court maintained the impugned order and judgment passed by the Appellate/ District Court being in accordance with law---Revision filed by defendants, being merit-less, was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. (c) Civil Procedure Code ( V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R. 11---Cause of action, accrual of---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Plaintiffs challenged the legality / authenticity of a number of mutations, however, their plaint was rejected under O.VII, R. 11, C.P.C.---Defendants filed revision as the Appellate Court set-aside the plaint-rejecting order passed by the Trial Court---Validity---While deciding the application filed under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., the Court has to just see that as to whether the plaintiff has disclosed a cause of action or not and as such at the initial stage it should not be the concern of the Court to record any finding that the plaintiff does not have a cause of action or that he would not be able to prove the cause of action, as such aspect of the case is to be determined after recording of pro and contra evidence---In the present case, notably, that the respondents/plaintiffs had successfully disclosed a cause of action, therefore, the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was liable to proceed in accordance with law---High Court maintained the impugned order and judgment passed by the Appellate/ District Court being in accordance with law---Revision filed by defendants, being merit-less, was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. (d) Civil Procedure Code ( V of 1908)--- ----O.VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Contents of plaint, considering of---Plaintiffs challenged the legality / authenticity of number of a mutations, however, their plaint was rejected under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.---Defendants filed revision as the Appellate Court set-aside the plaint-rejecting order passed by the Trial Court---Validity---While deciding the application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., it is only the contents of the plaint which are to be considered and even a plea taken in the written-statement or any document appended with the written-statement cannot be considered at such initial stage---At the time of deciding an application filed under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., for the rejection of a plaint, the Court has to just consider the "contents" of the plaint and every fact mentioned in the plaint has to be consideredas true and correct and even the written-statement or a plea taken in the written statement cannot be taken into consideration---High Court maintained the impugned order and judgment passed by the Appellate/ District Court being in accordance with law---Revision filed by defendants, being merit-less, was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Assistant Director Mines and Mineral Department, Swabi v. Fazal Sadiq and others 2022 CLC 1392 ref. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Grounds---Plaintiffs challenged the legality / authenticity of a number of mutations, however, their plaint was rejected under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.---Defendants filed revision as the Appellate Court set-aside, plaint-rejecting order passed by the Trial Court---Validity---Even the fact/ apprehension that the plaintiff may not ultimately succeed in establishing the averments made in the plaint, cannot be a ground for rejecting the plaint under O.VII, R.11 C.P.C.---High Court maintained the impugned order and judgment passed by the Appellate/ District Court being in accordance with law---Revision filed by defendants, being merit-less, was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Jewan and 7 others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others 1994 SCMR 826 ref. Aqil Malik and Gul Faraz for Petitioners. Khalid Rehman Qureshi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th November, 2024.