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: Doctrine of constructive Notice-A party cannot evade legal consequences by pleading ignorance when circumstances impose a duty to know. 224Writ Petition 221755/18 Qasim Ali Vs The FOP through Secretary etc Mr. Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad 01-10- 2025 2025 LHC 6375

Summary: (a) Muhammadan Law----Inheritance----Devolution of estate on death of Muslim; co-heirs’ rights; unlawful exclusion of sharers----Predecessor-in-interest, father of parties, died on 1.1.2002 leaving behind five sons and four daughters; suit filed by daughter (respondent No.1/plaintiff) seeking declaration/partition, mesne profits and injunction regarding property admittedly owned by deceased; petitioner/defendant No.6, a son, took exclusive possession, rented out portions and appropriated rent, refusing to recognise shares of other heirs----Held, that under Mohammadan Law, inheritance devolves automatically and immediately upon all legal heirs at the moment of the propositus’ death; every heir, male or female, acquires ownership in the estate as a matter of right, and no heir can lawfully exclude or dispossess another; possession of one co-sharer is deemed, in law, to be on behalf of all co-sharers, and delay in asserting share or challenging mutation does not extinguish such right----Doctrines of waiver, estoppel, relinquishment or adverse possession do not apply inter se co-heirs so as to deprive any heir of his or her share in the inherited property; in the present case, petitioner’s long possession could not ripen into exclusive title against his siblings nor justify their deprivation from inheritance; trial court and first appellate court rightly declared all heirs entitled to their respective shares and ordered partition/sale with distribution of proceeds. Cited cases: Mst. Khalida Azhar v. Viqar Rustom Bakhsi and others (2018 SCMR 30); Islam-ud-Din through LRs and others v. Mst. Noor Jehan through LRs and others (2016 SCMR 986); Ghulam Ali and others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1); Anwar Muhammad and others v. Shard Din and others (1983 SCMR 626); Haji v. Khuda Yar (PLD 1983 SC 453); Mirza Abib Baig v. Zahid Sabir (decd.) through LRs and others (2020 SCMR 601); Farhan Aslam and others v. Mst. Nuzba Shaheen and others (2021 SCMR 179). (b) Muhammadan Law----Gift (Hiba) by predecessor-in-interest pleaded to defeat inheritance claim----Burden of proof and essential ingredients----Petitioner/defendant No.6 set up plea that deceased father had gifted suit property to him during his lifetime out of love and affection, supported by an alleged iqrar nama dated 30.06.2000 and a purported certificate of possession issued by Nazim of the union council----Held, that person asserting exclusive title on the basis of gift bears a heavy onus to prove valid hiba; he must establish that donor made a clear and bona fide offer of gift, that it was accepted, and that possession was delivered in pursuance thereof; donor/donee must prove date, time and place of offer and acceptance and produce credible, confidence-inspiring evidence including attesting witnesses----In instant case, iqrar nama was devoid of particulars of witnesses, such as addresses and CNIC numbers, rendering it “dubious and unreliable”; no attesting witnesses were produced; alleged certificate of possession by Nazim was likewise not proved; it was undisputed that till his death predecessor-in-interest continued to exercise possessory rights and utility connections remained in his name----Petitioner failed to discharge burden of proof; plea of gift was rightly rejected by trial court and concurrently by appellate fora as untenable and an attempt to defeat co-heirs’ inheritance. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----Ss. 96 & 100----First appeal; second appeal; concurrent findings of fact; scope of interference by High Court and Supreme Court----Suit for declaration/partition and mesne profits decreed by trial court after framing of issues and recording evidence; first appeal under S.96, CPC dismissed on merits; second appeal under S.100, CPC dismissed by High Court vide impugned judgment dated 04.03.2023, finding no legal infirmity or misreading/non-reading of evidence in concurrent judgments----Petitioner nonetheless invoked Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, assailing concurrent findings on facts without pointing to any substantial question of law----Held, that concurrent findings of fact recorded by two competent courts carry great sanctity and are not to be lightly interfered with in second appeal or at leave stage unless shown to be arbitrary, perverse, based on misreading/non-reading of evidence or in derogation of settled law; in present case, judgments of courts below were well-reasoned, rooted in proper appreciation of evidence, consistent with principles of Muhammadan Law regarding inheritance and gift, and raised no question of law warranting interference; petition amounted merely to another attempt to reopen concluded findings and delay enjoyment of lawful inheritance by other heirs; leave to appeal was, therefore, refused and civil petition dismissed. (d) Civil procedure----Partition suit; mesne profits; co-sharer collecting rent to exclusion of others----Trial court decreed suit, declaring all heirs entitled to their respective shares and directing partition or sale; further directed petitioner to pay mesne profits at rate of Rs.25,000/- per month for three years preceding institution of suit, representing rent collected from property; petitioner restrained from creating third-party interest----Held, that where one co-sharer is in exclusive control of income from joint estate and appropriates rent without accounting to others, he is liable to render accounts and pay mesne profits corresponding to co-heirs’ shares; trial court’s approach in awarding mesne profits and protecting estate from alienation was in accordance with law and equity; concurrent affirmation by appellate court and High Court called for no interference. (e) Inheritance of women----Islamic law and public policy----Divine nature of right; impermissibility of curtailment; social evil of deprivation----Federal Shariat Court in Syeda Fauzia Shah v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2025 FSC 1) after detailed examination of Quran, Sunnah and principles of sharia declared that right of inheritance vested in every legal heir, male or female, is a divine right which cannot be curtailed directly or indirectly; practice of depriving women of inheritance is a social evil and contrary to public policy----In present case, petitioner’s conduct in excluding sister (respondent No.1) and other siblings from estate and contesting their lawful shares stood in clear conflict with settled sharia principles and constitutional policy; Supreme Court reiterated that estate of deceased vests automatically and immediately in heirs without intervention of any authority, and violation of inheritance laws amounts to exploitation of vulnerable family members, particularly women, and is wholly impermissible under Islamic law and constitutional norms. Cited case: Syeda Fauzia Shah v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2025 FSC 1). (f) Civil procedure----Frivolous and vexatious litigation; abuse of process; costs as corrective measure----Petitioner, despite having no sustainable case on merits and facing concurrent findings from trial and appellate courts, persisted in litigation up to Supreme Court, causing prolonged deprivation of co-heirs, especially female heir, from their lawful inheritance since 1.1.2002----Held, that continued resort to courts in face of clear and concurrent findings amounted to abuse of judicial process, contributed to mounting backlog and undermined efficient dispensation of justice; such conduct warrants deterrent costs----Accordingly, Supreme Court not only dismissed petition for leave but also imposed cost of Rs.5,00,000/- on petitioner, to be deposited with Registrar within seven days and distributed among legal heirs declared by trial court, thereby both penalizing abuse and partially compensating those whose rights were delayed. (g) Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973----Islamic injunctions; women’s inheritance rights; State’s constitutional duty----Scope----Court, while affirming decrees in favour of female heir, underscored that under Constitution and clear injunctions of Islam, State is obliged to ensure effective and unfettered realization of women’s right to inheritance; such right is not a concession by human law but a divinely ordained command explicitly declared in Holy Quran; any denial or obstruction of this right is not merely unlawful but a transgression against Divine Will----Cultural or societal practices that deprive women of inheritance are rooted neither in faith nor justice but in ignorance which Islam came to abolish; State bears sacred constitutional duty to uproot such practices by ensuring that every woman is informed of, and enabled to claim, her rightful share without delay, fear or dependence on lengthy litigation; it must develop proactive, accessible mechanisms to identify entitled women, reach out to them and assist in securing their entitlements----Those who, through coercion, deceit or undue influence, deprive women of inheritance must be held accountable under law; a society indifferent to such deprivation defies spirit of Constitution and express Command of Almighty Allah; a State that fails to safeguard women’s inheritance rights fails in its duty to uphold principles of equity, faith and justice.

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 – Arts. 17, 59 & 118 – Burden of Proof – Oral Gift – Fraudulent Mutation Oral gift by illiterate female challenged—Scope of burden—Held, where oral gift is alleged by defendants, particularly against a vulnerable party (illiterate female), threefold burden arises: (i) pleading facts with specificity (date, place, witnesses); (ii) adducing reliable evidence; and (iii) persuasion of court regarding voluntariness and legal validity—Respondents failed to plead or prove these essential elements—No acceptance of gift, no credible witness testimony, and absence of any justification undermined validity of oral gift—Failure to meet burdens rendered the defence unconvincing. (b) Mutation Proceedings – Legal Status – Revenue Entry Does Not Confer Ownership - Mutation No. 914 challenged as fraudulent—Held, mutation is not a document of title but merely an administrative record—Attestation of mutation based on Roznamcha Waqiati or revenue entries cannot by itself confer ownership—Party relying on mutation must prove underlying transaction—Respondents failed to establish valid gift as basis for mutation—Revenue record found to be manipulated to deprive appellant of inherited property. (c) Forensic Evidence – Thumbprint Comparison – Admissibility and Finality - Dactyloscopy in civil proceedings—Held, fingerprint analysis is exact science and conclusive if conducted properly—Appellant’s thumbprint on disputed mutation differed from her verified specimen—Expert report (Exh. P-1) was based on standard methodology and remained unshaken in cross-examination—Forensic finding confirmed appellant's claim of impersonation—Courts below failed to give due weight to conclusive scientific evidence. (d) Civil Procedure – Declaratory Suit – Limitation Act, 1908 – Arts. 95 & 120 – Applicability in Cases of Fraud - Suit for declaration and possession—Scope of limitation—Held, Article 95 applies where party was induced to act due to fraud—However, where plaintiff was not party to the fraud (impersonation), Article 120 applies—Declaratory suit based on subsisting ownership rights not time-barred if filed within six years of accrual of cause—Accrual triggered when respondents first denied her title before Collector—Suit filed within one month thereafter held to be within limitation—Findings of courts below on limitation reversed as legally unsustainable. (e) Constitutional Law – Art. 24 – Right to Property – Protection Against Deprivation by Fraud - Inheritance rights of female family members—Held, fraudulent alienation of inherited land under guise of gift to male relatives without reason or need, especially where donee failed to establish voluntariness or affection, amounts to deprivation of property without lawful authority—Article 24 protects against such deprivation—Gift transaction was a calculated move to strip the appellant of her rightful share—Transaction declared void ab initio due to fraud and collusion—Courts must guard against gender-biased dispossession masked as religious or altruistic gifting. (f) Legal Principle – “Fraud Unravels All” – No Protection of Limitation for Fraudulent Acts - Effect of fraud on limitation and adjudication—Held, fraud vitiates even solemn acts—Where fraud is established, limitation laws cannot be invoked to protect unlawful gain—Courts below erred by dismissing suit solely on grounds of limitation without addressing merits of fraudulent conduct—Litigants cannot be permitted to profit from deceit under the cover of technicality—Judgment emphasized that justice must prevail over procedural default where fraud is proven. Disposition: Appeal allowed; judgments and decrees of courts below set aside. Suit decreed in favour of appellant. Respondents to bear costs throughout.

Summary: (Against the order dated 03.09.2021 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Revision Application No. 239 of 2010). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 8---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 17---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Suit for possession---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Reversal---Principle---Registered sale deed---Presumption---Suit for possession of suit property filed by appellants / plaintiffs was decreed in their favour and appeal was dismissed by Lower Appellate Court---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Validity---Registered instrument as a sale deed was a title of suit property and could not be ignored despite the fact that it was challenged belatedly by respondent / plaintiff and such challenge failed not only at trial stage but also at the Lower Appellate stage---Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court decided all questions based on material and evidence placed before them with well-reasoned justification to arrive at such conclusion and within their jurisdiction---Supreme Court set aside the order passed by High Court and restored that of the Courts below---Appeal allowed. Shahenshah Hussain Syed, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Rasool Mangi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Shaukat Ali Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th March, 2025.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S. 115—Revision—Concurrent findings of subordinate Courts—Doctrine of election—Invocation of Civil Court jurisdiction after exhausting statutory remedies—ImpermissibilityAppellants, after filing declarations under MLR 115 and pursuing appellate remedies under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1977, challenged the resumption of excess land before the Civil Court through suits for declaration and possession. Supreme Court held that once statutory remedies under the Land Reforms Act had been fully exhausted, a subsequent attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of Civil Court on the same cause of action was barred under the doctrine of election. A litigant must elect one of the available legal remedies and cannot pursue parallel or successive recourses for the same grievance. Revisional Court rightly reversed the judgments of the Civil Courts, which had entertained barred claims—Appeals dismissed.Cited Case:• Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. Devan Sugar Mills Ltd. PLD 2018 SC 828(b) Land Reforms Regulation, 1977 (Act II of 1977)—S. 6 & S. 9—Declaration of excess land—Effect of failure to surrender—Self-executory provisions—Vesting of land in Government—Retrospective applicability—ScopeUnder S. 6 of the 1977 Act, any transfer or encumbrance of land by a holder exceeding prescribed land limits was void, and such land vested in the State. The appellants failed to appear before the Deputy Land Commissioner, leading to resumption of excess land. Supreme Court held that the relevant provisions of the 1977 Act were self-executory and operated automatically once landholdings in excess were established. The Court further held that the landmark Qazalbash Waqf case applied prospectively, and actions for land resumption taken prior to 23.03.1990 were unaffected. There was no jurisdictional defect in the Deputy Land Commissioner’s orders, and subsequent suits were a collateral challenge to valid executive action—No relief granted.Cited Case:• Government of Pakistan v. Qazalbash Waqf 1993 SCMR 1697(c) Land Reforms—Possession suits—Claim of part ownership without specific performance—Plea of oral payment—No legal title or enforceable right—EffectRespondents in Civil Court claimed rights in resumed land on the basis of alleged payments made to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. Supreme Court held that even if such payment had occurred, mere contribution of consideration without a registered transfer or specific performance did not vest any title in law. In absence of a suit for specific performance or refund of amount, no legal claim could be enforced. Revisional Court rightly disregarded oral and unsubstantiated claims—Ownership remained validly with declarants prior to resumption.(d) Constitutional jurisdiction—Alternative remedy—Civil suit—Jurisdictional bar—Land reforms adjudicationWhere a statutory framework under special legislation provides appellate and review mechanisms, Civil Courts are excluded from entertaining disputes on the same subject unless jurisdictional defect, mala fide, or fraud is shown. Appellants failed to demonstrate any such ground. The bar was properly invoked by the High Court. Revisional Court’s intervention under S. 115 CPC was justified, as the judgments of the lower Courts suffered from material legal error by entertaining claims barred by election and jurisdiction.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S. 115—Revisional jurisdiction—Scope—Concurrent findings of fact—Registered sale deed—Improper reversal by High Court—Non-speaking order—EffectAppellants filed suit for possession and mesne profits on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 05.03.1989. Trial Court decreed the suit, holding appellants as owners and respondent in illegal possession. First Appellate Court affirmed findings. However, Revisional Court, while exercising jurisdiction under S. 115 CPC, reversed concurrent findings without providing cogent reasons or identifying jurisdictional errors. Supreme Court held that Revisional Courts cannot act as another appellate forum and must refrain from reassessing evidence unless findings are perverse or contrary to law. Reversal without reasoning, and without addressing binding nature of registered deed or prior litigation, amounted to a serious legal error. Impugned judgment of High Court set aside—Findings of Trial and Appellate Courts restored.Cited Cases:• District Council Sialkot v. Nazir Ahmed Khan 2001 SCMR 1641• Lahore Development Authority v. Sharifan Bibi 2010 SCMR 742(b) Evidence Act (I of 1872)----S. 91 & S. 92—Registered sale deed—Presumption of validity—Challenge to title—Burden of proof—Failure to prove consideration—EffectRespondent alleged he had paid consideration to the father of appellants, claiming joint ownership of suit property. Supreme Court held that once a registered sale deed stands in favour of appellants, presumption of ownership arises, and burden lies on the challenger to rebut it through cogent evidence. Respondent failed to produce any proof of alleged payments or joint ownership and did not seek specific performance or refund. Courts below rightly disregarded vague oral assertions. Revisional Court's failure to address these evidentiary gaps rendered its interference unwarranted and contrary to settled law.(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)—S. 42—Declaratory relief—Challenge to registered instrument—Delay and failure to obtain relief—ConsequencesRespondent challenged appellants' title in a separate suit for cancellation of registered deed, which was dismissed by Trial Court and upheld by Appellate Court. Supreme Court noted that belated claims seeking cancellation without concurrent pursuit of specific relief or refund have no legal sanctity. Failure to challenge ownership through appropriate legal remedies bars collateral assertions in defence. Courts must give due weight to registered title documents when unassailed or unsuccessfully challenged—Revisional Court erred in undermining conclusive effect of prior judgments.(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S. 9—Jurisdiction of civil court—Possession suit—Nature and maintainability—Mischaracterization by High Court—EffectAppellants' suit was for possession and mesne profits, duly based on title acquired through registered sale deed. Supreme Court disapproved High Court's characterization of such suit as one for “administration,” noting it had no basis in pleadings or relief sought. Misreading of record by Revisional Court led to misapplication of law and unwarranted interference with valid decrees. Such jurisdictional error warranted correction under constitutional appellate jurisdiction.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 8 & 54---Suit for possession and injunction---Illegal construction over the plot of the plaintiff---Plaintiff being registered owner of the plot in dispute claimed possession thereof on the ground that the defendant purchased the plot in dispute from a person, who was not actual owner of the same ---Validity---Subject property was leased in the favour of the plaintiff, however, admittedly, no cancellation had been sought of the said lease deed by the defendant---Candid admissions of the defendant sufficiently established that the said defendant had no right title over the subject property---After filing the suit, notices were issued to the defendants, thus, after receipt of the summons, they were aware of the pendency of the suit and execution of the lease deed in favour of the plaintiff and despite a lapse of over 05 years the defendants choose not to file any suit for declaration of his title or the cancellation of the said lease deed---Defendant had most candidly admitted that he was not in possession of any registered instrument, possession or allotment order either in his name or the name of his predecessor---High Court held that plaintiff was the owner of the subject property, thus, issues Nos.1 and 4 were answered in the affirmative and decided in favour of plaintiff---Chain of ownership emanating from the person, from whom the defendant purchased the subject plot, was defective, as the suit property was purchased from a person, who was not the owner of the same---Suit of the plaintiff was decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) only, in circumstances. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 79, 85(5) & 129(e)---Registered documents---Presumption---Under Arts. 79 & 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, presumption is attached to registered documents and they are presumed to be genuine unless proved otherwise. Mst. Nazeeran and others v. Ali Bux and others 2024 SCMR 1271 rel. Jawed Raza for Plaintiff. Gharib Shah for Defendant No. 1. Date of hearing: 27th February, 2025.

Summary: (a) Islamic Law— ----Gift—Validity—Possession—Donee being a minor—Donor as natural guardian—Effect— Where a gift is made by a father to his minor daughter, actual physical delivery of possession is not essential under Islamic law—In the instant case, land measuring 909 acres (9,997 PIUs) was gifted by father to daughter, then a minor aged 11—Declaration made by donor before Land Reforms Authorities affirming the gift constituted valid admission—Held, possession by the minor donee living with the donor-father is deemed constructive delivery—Non-entry in revenue record or mutation of inheritance showing devolution to all heirs does not negate valid gift—High Court rightly relied on precedents affirming that strict proof of possession is unnecessary in cases of gift to minor by guardian-donor. ----Cited Cases: • Kaneez Bibi v. Sher Muhammad PLD 1991 SC 466 • Riaz Ullah Khan v. Asghar Ali 2004 SCMR 1701 (b) Land Reforms— ----Martial Law Regulation No.64, para. 9(a)—Declaration of landholding—Gift prior to declaration—Judicial recognition—Effect— Donor's declaration under MLR No.64 (1959) before Land Reforms Authorities that 909 acres were gifted to daughter was never revoked or challenged—Land Reforms record showed retention of 36,000 PIUs and gift of remaining 9,997 PIUs—Held, such declaration served dual legal function: (i) prevented resumption of land by government; and (ii) constituted conclusive admission of gift—No dispute raised by authorities or legal heirs against said declaration—Gift recognized as valid and binding—Declaration held decisive in establishing ownership rights of donee. (c) Civil Procedure— ----Concurrent findings—High Court restoration of trial court decree—Scope of appellate review— Trial court had decreed suit declaring donee as owner based on donor's declaration and Land Reforms record—Appellate court reversed decree on ground of non-proof of possession—High Court allowed revision and restored trial court’s findings—Held, High Court correctly appreciated evidence and applied settled law on gifts to minors—Appellate court erred in requiring physical possession despite legal recognition of constructive possession—Supreme Court upheld High Court’s judgment, finding no legal infirmity. ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed; High Court’s restoration of trial court decree upheld.

Summary: (a) Criminal Law – Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Dispute Over Possession – Joint Ownership –– ---- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – Section 145 – Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 were joint allottees of a commercial property as per CDA records – Magistrate’s order granting exclusive possession to Respondent No. 1 was illegal and beyond the scope of Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Held, Section 145 is inapplicable where parties are in joint possession, as the provision is only meant to address disputes over exclusive possession leading to breach of peace – Reliance placed on Md. Askir Mia vs. Md. Ayubullah (1971 P Cr. L J 420) and Provincial Government vs. Bhivram Nanhya Mahar (AIR 1940 Nagpur 265). (b) Possession Disputes – When Magistrate Can Exercise Jurisdiction Under Section 145 Cr.P.C. –– ---- Jurisdiction of Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Held, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable where both parties claim joint possession – Magistrate can exercise jurisdiction only when one party is found to be in exclusive possession and another forcibly takes over the property – Case law affirms that Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked where both parties admit joint ownership and joint possession – Reliance placed on Gul Zada vs. Hazrat Gul (PLD 2024 Peshawar 35) and Arbab Muhammad Khan vs. Arbab Muhammad Hasham Khan (PLD 1959 Peshawar 193). (c) Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings – When Criminal Proceedings Should Be Stayed –– ---- Pending Civil Suit and Criminal Proceedings Under Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Held, where a civil suit is already pending regarding possession, the Magistrate should not interfere under Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Proper course is to refer the matter to the civil court rather than deciding possessory rights summarily – Reliance placed on Mukhteyar Alam vs. The State (2017 PCr.LJ 684) and Ch. Ghalib Hussain vs. Muhammad Siddique (2013 MLD 749). (d) Breach of Peace – When Magistrate Can Act Under Other Provisions of Cr.P.C. –– ---- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – Sections 107, 144, 151 – Held, where joint owners are in possession but there is apprehension of breach of peace, the Magistrate should invoke Sections 107, 144, or 151 Cr.P.C. instead of Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Magistrate exceeded jurisdiction by ordering exclusive possession to one party instead of maintaining peace – Reliance placed on Abdus Salam Miaji vs. Abdul Kadir Bepari (PLD 1967 Dacca 715). (e) Wrongful Dispossession – Two-Month Limitation Under Section 145(4) Cr.P.C. –– ---- Time Barred Claims Under Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Respondent No. 1 alleged dispossession on 18-07-2022, but proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated on 6-2-2023, i.e., more than six months later – Held, under Section 145(4) Cr.P.C., the complaint must be filed within two months of dispossession – Magistrate’s order granting exclusive possession to Respondent No. 1 violated statutory time limits – Reliance placed on Muhammad Yaqoob Malik vs. District & Sessions Judge (2004 YLR 2383) and Sirajul Haque vs. Mst. Malka Bibi (2002 MLD 1989). (f) Misinterpretation of Partnership Deed – No Exclusive Possession Clause –– ---- Partnership Agreement Misconstrued – The Partnership Deed did not grant exclusive possession of the subject property to Respondent No. 1 – It only authorized Respondent No. 1 to construct the Shopping Mall, but did not require exclusive possession – Held, Magistrate and Sessions Judge erred in treating the Partnership Deed as a basis for granting exclusive possession – Reliance placed on Saleem-Ur-Rehman vs. Faqir Hussain (2004 SCMR 667). (g) Concurrent Findings – When High Court Can Interfere –– ---- Judicial Review of Lower Court’s Findings – Held, High Court can interfere with concurrent findings where they are based on misreading of evidence, jurisdictional overreach, or erroneous legal interpretations – Magistrate’s and Sessions Judge’s orders were contrary to settled principles of law under Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Reliance placed on Abdul Khaliq vs. Muhammad Shafique (2007 SCMR 1953) and Sultan Room vs. Bakht Karam (2010 MLD 1669). (h) Disposition – High Court’s Directions –– ---- Writ Petition Allowed – Magistrate’s and Sessions Judge’s Orders Set Aside – Possession of Commercial Plot No.11, Sector I-8 Markaz, Islamabad restored jointly to Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 – Magistrate directed to invoke alternative provisions (Sections 107, 144, 151 Cr.P.C.) if breach of peace is apprehended instead of applying Section 145 Cr.P.C. Disposition: ---- Writ Petition allowed – Orders of Magistrate and Sessions Judge set aside – Possession restored jointly to both parties – Magistrate directed to handle breach of peace concerns under appropriate Cr.P.C. provisions instead of Section 145 Cr.P.C..