Summary: 'the burden of proof lies on the party claiming a benami transaction and must establish certain criteria, including the source of purchase money, possession of the property, the relationship between the parties, the motive for the transaction---The case before the Supreme Court of Pakistan involves a dispute over the ownership of a two-marla house. The house was originally purchased by Sakina Bibi in 1973, and after her death, it came into the possession of the appellants. The legal heirs of Muhammad Ishaq Rana, claiming ownership, filed a suit for partition and the return of the original sale deed. In analyzing the case, the Supreme Court considered the concept of benami transactions, where the ostensible owner is not the actual owner of the property. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming a benami transaction and must establish certain criteria, including the source of purchase money, possession of the property, the relationship between the parties, the motive for the transaction, and the previous and subsequent conduct of the parties. After examining the evidence presented, including oral and documentary evidence, the Supreme Court found that the appellants failed to prove the essential elements of a benami transaction. The court highlighted deficiencies in the evidence, such as the lack of direct knowledge by the appellants' witnesses regarding the purchase and payment of the house. Based on these findings, the Supreme Court rejected the claim of the appellants and upheld the decision of the trial court. The court concluded that the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that Sakina Bibi was a benamidar and Imam-ud-Din was the actual owner of the house. Appeal dismissed.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 — Ss. 4, 5 & 11 — Jurisdiction of FOSPAH — Bar on civil courts and injunctions — Complaint filed by female heirs before Federal Ombudsman (FOSPAH) seeking possession and partition of inherited property — Held, FOSPAH lawfully exercised powers under Ss. 4 & 5 of the 2020 Act to secure women’s property rights; once Section 4 is triggered, Section 11 expressly bars any court or authority from granting injunctions or questioning validity of FOSPAH’s actions — Parallel civil proceedings subsequently instituted by petitioner cannot oust FOSPAH’s jurisdiction — Rais Munir Ahmed v. Women Ombudsperson Punjab (2024 MLD 822) & Fajar Ali v. Mst. Jamila (PLD 1969 Lahore 545) ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan — Art. 199 — Writ against interim and lawful administrative orders — Maintainability — Representation before the President under the Act dismissed as premature since FOSPAH’s order was interim and just; constitutional jurisdiction not attracted absent illegality, mala fides or lack of jurisdiction — No misreading or violation of law found in concurrent findings of FOSPAH and the President — Interference declined. (c) Doctrine of Limine Control — Summary dismissal of unmerited petitions — High Court reaffirmed principle that petitions lacking prima facie grounds may be dismissed at limine to prevent unnecessary process and delay — Reliance placed on Asif Saleem v. Chairman BOG University of Lahore (PLD 2019 Lahore 407) and Muhammad Mustafa v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1992 SC 62). (d) Succession and property transfer — CDA direction — FOSPAH’s direction to Capital Development Authority to transfer suit house among all legal heirs upheld as consistent with mandate of the 2020 Act. Disposition: Petition dismissed in limine; FOSPAH and Presidential orders upheld; no interference warranted.

Summary: a) West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 (Act IX of 1948) – Applicability – Devolution of inheritance – Determination of law governing mutation attested post-promulgation – Custom vs. Shariat. Where a person died prior to the promulgation of the Shariat Act (i.e., before 15th March 1948), but mutation of inheritance was sanctioned thereafter, the devolution of property must be governed by Islamic law rather than customary law. In the present case, mutation No. 01 dated 30.10.1952, though concerning the estate of Abdul Ghafoor who died in 1947, was sanctioned after the cutoff date. Relying on the Supreme Court’s larger bench decision in Ghulam Haider v. Murad (PLD 2012 SC 501), the Court held that such rights are deemed to have been acquired under Muslim Personal Law. Therefore, the exclusion of Abdul Ghafoor’s sister, Mst. Ghafooran Bibi, was not sustainable. However, her widow (Mst. Sifta) having received a share in the mutation further indicated that customary law was not applicable. Held, inheritance was to be governed by Islamic law and not by custom – Findings of both lower courts on this issue upheld. Cited Case: • Ghulam Haider v. Murad (PLD 2012 SC 501) (b) Civil Courts Jurisdiction – Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 (XLVII of 1958) – Ss. 25, 13, 18 – Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956 – Rehabilitation Manual – Settlement laws – Mutation sanctioned by ARC – Exclusive jurisdiction – Bar of suit. Civil court jurisdiction is barred in matters governed by settlement laws and where special forums under such laws are prescribed. Mutation No. 01 dated 30.10.1952 was sanctioned under authority of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner pursuant to the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance, 1948. The Court held that the suit filed before the Civil Court was barred under Section 25 of the Settlement Act, 1958. The bar on civil jurisdiction continues despite repeal of the Settlement Acts via the Repeal Act of 1975, in view of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Plaintiffs were bound to pursue their remedy, if any, before the relevant Settlement Authorities. Cited Cases: • Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Shafi (PLD 1971 SC 762) • Mst. Zainab v. Mst. Raji (PLD 1960 SC 229) • Muhammad Saleem v. Sardar Ali (2004 SCMR 1640) • Faizuddin Ahmad v. Muhammad Yousaf (1988 SCMR 1289) • Nazeer Ahmad v. Ghulam Mehdi (1988 SCMR 824) • Administrator Thal Development v. Ali Muhammad (2012 SCMR 730) Held, civil court jurisdiction is barred under settlement law – Findings of lower courts on this issue were erroneous and reversed. (c) Limitation – Limitation Act, 1908 – Ss. 18, 120, Art. 95 – Mutation of inheritance – Delay in challenge – Waiver and acquiescence – Inheritance claim – Cognizable delay by legal heirs. Suit was filed by legal heirs of Mst. Ghafooran Bibi in 2009 challenging mutation sanctioned in 1952, despite the fact that she had passed away in 1988 after living for 36 years with full knowledge of the mutation without laying any challenge. The Court held that both she and her legal heirs had acquiesced to the mutation. No reliable evidence was led regarding continued payments or any acknowledgment of her inheritance rights by beneficiaries. The claim was barred by limitation, and the plaintiffs failed to establish exception under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Rustam v. Mst. Makhan Jan (2013 SCMR 299) • Mst. Grana v. Sahib Kamala Bibi (PLD 2014 SC 167) • Atta Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh (2007 SCMR 1446) • Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din (PLD 2022 SC 353) • Syed Kausar Ali Shah v. Syed Farhat Hussain Shah (2022 SCMR 1558) • Saadat Khan v. Shahid-ur-Rehman (PLD 2023 SC 362) • Khushi Muhammad v. Mst. Fazal Bibi (PLD 2016 SC 872) • Mst. Shabla v. Jahan Afroz (2020 SCMR 352) distinguished Held, suit was hopelessly barred by time – Inheritance claims must still conform to statutory limitation and cannot be indefinitely revived through LRs of inactive predecessors. (d) Second Appeal – Scope – Reversal of lower appellate court – Interference justified where findings contrary to evidence or law. The first appellate court erred in reversing the trial court’s dismissal without properly addressing the jurisdictional bar and limitation. It misread material evidence and failed to consider binding Supreme Court precedents. Interference in second appeal under Section 100 CPC was warranted. Cited Cases: • Madan Gopal v. Maran Bepari (PLD 1969 SC 617) • Sheikh Akhtar Aziz v. Mst. Shabnam Begum (2019 SCMR 524) (e) Disposition – Appeal allowed – Appellate court judgment set aside – Suit dismissed. Regular Second Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment dated 22.02.2020 of the first appellate court set aside. Suit filed by Respondents/Plaintiffs was dismissed.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure & Property Law ----Benami Transactions—Concept, essentials, and proof—Ostensible owner vs. real owner—Burden of proof—Appellants (daughters) claimed two immovable properties standing in their mother’s name were in fact benami properties purchased and funded by their deceased father, thus forming part of his estate—One property purchased in 1960, the other in 1970—Mother (respondent No.1) asserted exclusive ownership, having arranged funds herself and through sons’ income; construction of one house financed via HBFC loan repaid by her—No evidence deceased husband ever disputed her ownership in his lifetime—Held, essential elements of benami transaction include: (i) agreement (express or implied) between ostensible owner and real purchaser that property be held for latter’s benefit; and (ii) transaction entered between real purchaser and seller without ostensible owner as party—Mere source of funds not conclusive; other factors include possession of title documents, management of property, enjoyment of usufruct, and recognition of ownership—Burden of proof lies on party alleging benami—Suspicion insufficient; requires unimpeachable evidence—Children cannot, after decades, challenge mother’s ownership absent cogent proof—Reliance placed on Ch. Ghulam Rasool v. Nusrat Rasool (PLD 2008 SC 146), Abdul Majeed v. Amir Muhammad (2005 SCMR 577). (b) Law of Evidence ----Art. 117, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984—Burden of proof in benami claims—Party alleging benami must prove arrangement, intention, and transaction mode through direct or circumstantial evidence—Best evidence would have been testimony of deceased husband, who never disputed wife’s ownership—Absence of such evidence fatal to appellants’ claim—Court cannot infer benami merely from relationship or conjecture. (c) Succession & Inheritance ----Inheritance rights—Claim to properties standing in name of surviving spouse—Where spouse held title for decades, properties acquired long before propositus’s death, and no challenge raised during his lifetime, later claims by heirs alleging ostensible ownership unsustainable without credible proof—Long acquiescence strengthens presumption of exclusive ownership in name-holder. Disposition: Appeal dismissed—High Court’s judgment upheld—Properties held to be exclusively owned by respondent No.1 (mother), not part of deceased father’s estate—No interference warranted. Cited Cases: Ch. Ghulam Rasool v. Nusrat Rasool (PLD 2008 SC 146) Abdul Majeed v. Amir Muhammad (2005 SCMR 577) Pether Perumal v. Muniandy (1908 ILR 35 Cal 551 (PC)) Gurkaran v. Shella (AIR 1918 PC 140)

Summary: (a) Islamic Law --- Gift inter vivos (hiba) --- Principles of zarar (harm) --- Gift by father to one legal heir excluding others --- Validity --- Distinction between exclusion out of malice and recognition of filial service --- Concurrent findings of fact - Petitioners (siblings of the donee) challenged oral gifts made by their deceased father to respondent (their brother) on the ground that such transfers were motivated by malice and intended to deprive them of inheritance, thus falling within the mischief of zarar under Islamic law --- Held, petitioners themselves admitted having severed ties with their father and produced no specific evidence of fraud or collusion in the mutations which bore the thumb impressions and photograph of the donor along with attestation by witnesses --- Evidence revealed that donee was residing with the deceased, provided companionship and care in old age, while petitioners were estranged and involved in litigation against the donor --- Distinguished from Liaqat Ali v. Shahnaz Akhtar (2025 LHC 693), where gift was set aside for being made out of animosity without proof of service or affection by donee --- Court held that Islamic law does not preclude a Muslim from transferring property to a child who demonstrates filial responsibility and care; such transfer does not ipso facto constitute zarar --- Validity of gift upheld --- No ground for interference with concurrent findings of facts by courts below. Cited Case: • Liaqat Ali v. Shahnaz Akhtar (2025 LHC 693) ------ "If a legal heir is deliberately and unjustifiably deprived of inheritance through a gift motivated solely by malice or bias, particularly, where the donee is one among several sons or daughters, such a transaction may fall within the mischief of zarar and be liable to be declared invalid. It would be a manifest error in such cases to uphold a gift that serves no purpose (love and affection) but the exclusion of others. However, when some children (the petitioners) have distanced themselves from their father, embroiled him in unwarranted litigation, and effectively severed familial ties, while another child (the respondent) remains devoted, provides companionship and support, and shoulders the responsibilities of care in old age, it is only natural that a father may incline towards the one who stood by him. In such circumstances, Islamic law does not restrain a Muslim owner from gifting his property to the child who has earned his trust and affection through personal service and care. Prima facie, it appears that the deceased, impressed by the conduct and care extended by the respondent (donee), chose to transfer his entire estate to him during his lifetime and the disobedience of the petitioners and their distancing from the donor in his life was only an ancillary aspect of the matter. Ratio laid down in case reported as Liaqat Ali v. Shahnaz Akhtar (2025 LHC 693) is distinguished."

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ---- S. 5(2); Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ---- Ss. 435 & 439 Simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings --- Alleged fabrication of Nikah Nama to claim inheritance --- Request for stay of criminal trial --- Scope and judicial discretion --- FIR was lodged alleging that petitioner forged a fictitious Nikah Nama to pose as wife of the deceased father of the complainant in order to fraudulently claim property --- Petitioner sought stay of criminal proceedings during pendency of civil/family litigation regarding validity of said Nikah Nama --- Held, there is no legal bar on the parallel institution of criminal and civil cases --- However, where determination of criminal liability is intrinsically linked to outcome of pending civil litigation, the criminal court must exercise judicial discretion to avoid conflicting decisions and possible prejudice to the accused --- Genuineness of Nikah Nama being a central issue in the civil court, propriety required that criminal trial not be concluded before civil proceedings are finalized --- Order refusing stay of trial was unsustainable --- Petition partially allowed; trial may proceed, but final judgment to be withheld until civil/family court decision. Cited Cases: • Salman Ashraf v. Addl. District Judge Lahore (2023 SCMR 1292) • Muhammad Aslam v. The State (2017 SCMR 390) • Abdul Ahad v. Amjad Ali and others (PLD 2006 SC 771)

Summary: a) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) –– Ss. 372, 376 & 383 –– Succession certificate –– Revocation –– Government compensation for martyrdom –– Whether such amount constitutes "Tarka" –– Validity –– Petitioner (widow of deceased) was granted succession certificate in 2015 regarding Government compensation awarded after martyrdom of her husband –– Respondents (mother and daughters of deceased) filed revocation application alleging improper exclusion of legal heirs –– Trial Court and Appellate Court allowed revocation and granted succession certificate afresh as per Sharai Fatwa –– Held, latest Fatwa clarified that government compensation awarded after the death of a person does not fall within the definition of "Tarka" (inheritable estate), therefore, mother of deceased was not entitled to claim share in such posthumous benefit –– Further held, prior succession certificate was validly issued, and orders of courts below suffered from legal infirmity –– Rights of minor daughters were protected through declaration and assurance by maternal uncle who undertook responsibility for safeguarding their share –– Orders of courts below set aside and original succession certificate restored. Cited Case: • Mst. Hussain Jamala v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (PLD 2013 Peshawar 01) Disposition: Revision allowed; succession certificate dated 19th November 2015 restored. **(b) Islamic Law –– Compensation awarded posthumously by State –– Not part of "Tarka" –– Fatwa –– Applicability –– Held, only the wealth and assets owned or due to deceased during their lifetime constitute Tarka for the purpose of Islamic inheritance –– Financial benefits or compensation granted by the government after death as an ex gratia gesture or in recognition of service/martyrdom do not qualify as estate property and hence are not distributable among heirs as per inheritance law –– Fatwa dated 1st June 2023 by Mufti Gul Hassan reaffirmed this principle –– Accordingly, mother of deceased could not claim share in such amount. Disposition: Revision allowed. **(c) Civil Procedure –– Protection of minors’ interest –– Assurance of guardianship –– Unregistered property –– Relevance –– Minor daughters’ rights in succession were secured through their maternal uncle who undertook responsibility for preserving their share –– Though property purchased in their name was not yet registered, the Court accepted the undertaking of guardian and considered the arrangement sufficient under the circumstances –– Held, minors’ legal entitlements remained safeguarded and were not prejudiced by restoration of original succession certificate. Disposition: Revision allowed.

Summary: (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) — Ss. 5, 9, 10, 12 & Schedule — West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 — Suit for recovery of dowry (haq mehr) by parents of deceased wife — Maintainability — Petitioners, being parents of deceased Mst. Mehreen, filed suit before Family Court seeking recovery of dowry articles (100 misqal gold) from her husband — Held, Family Court has limited jurisdiction to matters expressly listed in the Schedule to the Family Courts Act, 1964, which primarily covers disputes arising between spouses or arising directly from the marriage relationship — Claim for share in dowry as tarka by heirs of deceased wife amounts to a succession matter and not a matrimonial dispute — Such claim lies outside the scope of Family Court’s jurisdiction — Family Court rightly dismissed suit for lack of locus standi — Orders upheld. PLD 1991 SC 750; PLD 1991 SC 731; PLD 2019 Sindh 1 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan — Art. 199 — Constitutional petition against concurrent findings — Scope — Both Family Court and Appellate Court had concurrently dismissed petitioners’ suit for want of jurisdiction and locus standi — Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to disturb concurrent factual and legal findings unless findings are perverse, illegal, or without jurisdiction — No illegality, irregularity, or miscarriage of justice shown — Petition dismissed in limine. 2008 YLR 2309; PLD 2008 Karachi 2005 ref. (c) Inheritance and succession — Jurisdiction — Claim to dowry after death of wife — Legal character of dowry — Dowry may form part of deceased’s estate (tarka), but determination of heirs’ shares in tarka is not a matter falling within jurisdiction of Family Court — Remedy lies in civil court having jurisdiction over succession matters — Filing suit before Family Court by legal heirs of deceased wife is misconceived and not maintainable. Disposition: Petition dismissed in limine. Concurrent findings of Family Court and Appellate Court upheld. Family Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate inheritance-based claims by legal heirs.

Summary: (a) Limitation Act, 1908 — Inheritance Claims — Time-Barred Suit: ----Ss. 3, 18, 120—Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.—Inheritance—Gift deed—Successor’s right to challenge after predecessor’s silence—Whether limitation applies—Held, the predecessor never challenged the impugned registered gift deed during her lifetime (1981–2009) or subsequent third-party transfers—Successor (petitioner) filed suit in 2015 after 34 years of gift deed and 6 years after predecessor's death—In such circumstances, limitation does apply—Right to inheritance cannot survive where the predecessor acquiesced and did not claim title—No cause to bypass statutory bar under Article 120 of Limitation Act—Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 was proper. ----Cited Cases: • Muhammad Rustam v. Mst. Makhan Jan, 2013 SCMR 299 • PLD 2014 SC 167 (Mst. Grana case) • PLD 2023 SC 362 (Saadat Khan case) • PLD 2022 SC 353 (Salamat Ali case) • 2023 SCMR 1402 (Mst. Faheeman Begum case) (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Rejection of Plaint: ----Order VII, Rule 11—Applicability—Scope—Where suit is ex facie time-barred, recording evidence is not required—Limitation need not be treated as a mixed question of law and fact in every case—If delay is apparent from the plaint and no explanation is provided, plaint can be rejected at initial stage. ----Cited Cases: • 2016 SCMR 910 (Agha Syed Mushtaque Ali Shah v. Mst. Bibi Gul Jan) • PLD 2012 SC 247 (Florida Builders case) • 2023 PLC (C.S.) 310 (Saqib Ali case) (c) Civil Law — Inheritance—Waiver and Acquiescence: ----Inheritance claim—Effect of predecessor’s acquiescence—If predecessor failed to assert rights in lifetime, successor cannot revive claim—Mere inheritance title not sufficient to defeat limitation or challenge transactions affecting third-party rights—Inaction for decades estops relief. Cited Cases: • PLD 2011 SC 657 (Lal Khan case) • 2022 SCMR 1558 (Syed Kausar Ali Shah case) • PLD 2023 SC 362 (Saadat Khan case) (d) Presumption of Validity — Registered Gift Deed: ----Registered document—Presumption under QSO Art. 100—Gift deed, more than 30 years old, carries statutory presumption of genuineness—Petitioner failed to rebut presumption—Limitation and estoppel further confirmed validity. (e) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 — Art. 199 — Judicial Review: ----Scope—Revisional court’s decision—High Court’s jurisdiction limited to jurisdictional errors—No interference warranted if subordinate court acted within jurisdiction—Petition under Art. 199 cannot substitute for second appeal or revision. ----Cited Cases: • PLD 1985 SC 131 (Noor Muhammad case) • PLD 1974 SC 139 (Muhammad Hussain Munir case) • PLD 2006 SC 214 (Mst. Mobin Fatima case) ----Disposition: Petition dismissed. Impugned revisional decree upheld. Suit rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for being time-barred. ---Quote: The questions of limitation, waiver and acquiescence cannot be brushed aside in every claim of inheritance. ? The distinction has to be drawn between a claim of inheritance agitated during the lifetime of the legal heir(s) and the one agitated after death of such legal heir(s)

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----S. 115---Concurrent findings of fact---Interference in revisional jurisdiction---Scope---Petitioner (widow and uneducated village woman) sought cancellation of oral gift mutation in favour of her brother, allegedly executed by their deceased father shortly before his death---Courts below dismissed her suit based on continuous possession and mutation in revenue record---Held, that both courts below committed material illegalities and misreadings by ignoring settled legal principles regarding oral gifts---Heavy burden lay on the beneficiary (brother) to prove offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession; however, he failed to appear as a witness and relied solely on his son (DW-7), whose testimony was neither competent nor sufficient under Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, Art. 129(g)---Pleadings failed to disclose essential particulars of time, venue, and witnesses of oral transaction; contradictory testimonies of defense witnesses further eroded credibility---Mutation document lacked signature or thumb impression of donee; no substantive evidence proved valid oral gift---Possession of male heir presumed constructive on behalf of all co-heirs---Findings of lower courts were perverse, and revisional interference was warranted---Suit decreed in favour of petitioner, and concurrent judgments set aside. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Sarwar v. Mumtaz Bibi (2020 SCMR 276) • Mst. Parveen v. Muhammad Pervaiz (2022 SCMR 64) • Bilal Hussain Shah v. Dilawar Shah (PLD 2018 SC 698) • Muhammad Ejaz v. Mst. Khalida Awan (2010 SCMR 342) • Ghulam Ali v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1) (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 129(g)---Oral gift---Failure of donee to appear as witness---Adverse presumption---Donee, claiming oral gift of entire estate from deceased father, failed to testify despite being the only competent witness of alleged transaction---Held, court was bound to draw adverse presumption under Art.129(g) of QSO, 1984---Evidence led through attorney-son (DW-7), who was not shown to be present at the time of alleged gift, held inadmissible---Failure to discharge burden fatal to claim of oral gift. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Nawaz through L.Rs. v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan (2013 SCMR 1360) • Muhammad Riaz v. Mst. Badshah Begum (2021 SCMR 605) • Muhammad Shafiq Ullah v. Allah Bakhsh (2021 SCMR 763) (c) Muhammadan Law / Islamic Inheritance Principles ----Right of inheritance---Female heirs---Oral gift to disinherit female heir---Burden of proof---Judicial reluctance to uphold disinheritance of women based on vague oral transactions---Courts must jealously guard inheritance rights of female heirs---Mere lapse of time does not extinguish inheritance rights---Held, in absence of compelling, cogent and lawful proof, oral gift depriving petitioner of her Quranic share could not be sustained---Male heirs must justify disinheritance of female heirs beyond doubt---Shariah and statutory rights must be protected. Cited Cases: • Mst. Aksar Jan v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar (2025 SCMR 88) • Mst. Gohar Khanum v. Mst. Jamila Jan (2014 SCMR 801) • Shabla v. Jahan Afroz Khilat (2020 SCMR 352) • Ghulam Qasim v. Mst. Razia Begum (PLD 2021 SC 812) (d) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) ----S. 42---Mutation---Sanctioning of mutation in gift---Requirement of common assembly---Effect of failure---Impugned gift mutation was claimed to have been sanctioned in common assembly at village headman's residence, whereas village headman testified it occurred at Tehsil office---Held, inconsistency in place of sanctioning undermined legal validity of mutation; further, mutation alone could not prove ownership or transaction of gift in absence of separate proof of transaction. Cited Cases: • Mst. Brikhna v. Faiz Ullah Khan (2020 SCMR 1681) • Muhammad Nawaz v. Sakina Bibi (2020 SCMR 1021) • Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel un Nisa (2001 SCMR 338) **(e) Civil law---Pleadings and evidence---Evidence beyond pleadings---Scope---Held, under O. VI, R. 7, CPC, no party may lead or rely on evidence beyond their pleadings---Defendant's witnesses offered contradictory narratives about the circumstances of the gift---Essential details such as time, date, venue, and presence of witnesses omitted from pleadings---Such discrepancies could not be cured by extraneous oral statements---Court was bound to disregard such evidence. Cited Cases: • Moiz Abbas v. Mrs. Latifa (2019 SCMR 74) • Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue (2014 SCMR 914) Disposition: Civil Revision allowed---Concurrent judgments and decrees of courts below set aside---Suit decreed as prayed with costs throughout.