Summary: -----Quote: Order VI rule 17 C.P.C: The philosophy for amendment of the pleadings is to determine the real controversy between the parties and unless the pleadings are filed, the Court would be unable to move ahead for resolution of the dispute between the parties towards its logical conclusion. Declining the request of the petitioner for submission of her written statement (amended) would amount to depriving her of placing her actual stance before the Court and it would negate the provisions of order VI rule 17 C.P.C, which is not permissible. The Court would be unable to decide the lis in accordance with law unless the written statement is placed before the court. Rel: Mumtaz Baig and 5 others v. Sarfraz Baig (2003 CLC 713). The presiding judge was required to decide the application of the petitioner with proper application of law and mind. It appears from the record that both the learned Courts below though have not decided the fate of the applications of the petitioner through proper application of mind and have not applied the law in its true perspective as the decision impugned through instant petition is not the mandate of law, as such, it could not be sustained. Suo motu powers of High Court u/s 115 C.P.C: Irrespective of any such prayer in the petitioner’s application, this Court has got ample powers for exercising suo motu jurisdiction u/s 115 C.P.C pertaining to the illegality committed by the learned Courts below. This aspect of the power of the Court under section 115 C.P.C has been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Province of Punjab through District Officer, Revenue Rawalpini and others Vs. Muhammad Sarwar” (2014 SCMR 1358). Powers u/s 115 C.P.C may be exercised by this court to correct the error, illegality or exercise of jurisdiction not so vested in the subordinate Court. Rel. “Banori Vs. Jillani (PLD 2010 SC 1186). It has been further settled that revisional jurisdiction is corrective and supervisory in nature; hence, no harm would be caused if the Court seized of a revision petition exercises its suo motu jurisdiction to correct the errors of jurisdiction committed by the courts below. Such fact and the powers of the Courts can be ascertained from the plain language used in Section 115 of C.P.C and the intention of the legislature, whereas exercise of this jurisdiction if allowed to go into the spiral of technicalities and restrictions of limitation, the very purpose behind conferring such jurisdiction would be defeated. -----Background: The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the District Judge, Chitral Upper’s order dated 26.07.2023, which dismissed her appeal. The initial appeal was against a Senior Civil Judge's order dated 03.05.2023, which allowed her request to cancel a special power of attorney in favor of Mazhar Ullah but denied her request to submit an amended written statement. The case revolves around a property dispute, where plaintiffs (respondents) filed a suit in 2020 seeking a declaration and recovery of possession of inherited property from their mother, who inherited it from Mubarak Khan. The petitioner, as defendant No. 12, contested the attorney appointment and filed for a separate statement to assert her claim more accurately through her son, Abdur Rashid, as her attorney. -----Issues: 1- Validity of Special Power of Attorney: Whether the trial court's decision to cancel the special power of attorney in favor of Mazhar Ullah and appointing Abdur Rashid was justified. -----2- Right to File Amended Written Statement: Whether the petitioner has the right to file an amended written statement, considering her claim that the original joint statement did not fully represent her stance. -----3- Effect of Amended Statement on Case Proceedings: Whether allowing the petitioner’s amended statement would alter the nature or impact of the joint defense initially presented. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Power of Attorney Cancellation: The court affirmed that the principal (petitioner) holds the right to revoke a power of attorney and appoint a new representative. The initial power of attorney with Mazhar Ullah, defendant No.1's son, was rightly canceled, allowing the petitioner to appoint her son as her special attorney. --Denial of Amended Written Statement: The court noted that filing an amended written statement should not conflict with the joint statement unless it contradicts the initial defenses presented by other defendants. Here, the petitioner’s proposed separate statement did not significantly alter the shared defense and was mainly intended to clarify her personal claim. However, as per prior rulings, such as in The United Bank Limited vs. Imran Ghani (W.P No.158-P/2024), amendments must be specific and justified, and blanket permissions for amendments are restricted. --Preservation of Joint Defense Consistency: The court determined that the amended statement, if allowed, would not undermine the joint defense already filed, as the main defense remained intact. Thus, the petitioner’s request for a separate statement was not viewed as significantly detrimental to the collective defense. -----Citations/Precedents: The United Bank Limited through its Chief Executive and others Vs. Imran Ghani and others W.P No.158-P/2024 (Decided 31.07.2024) Stressed the need for specificity in amendments, ruling that parties cannot amend pleadings arbitrarily; any amendment must be essential to the case.

Summary: (a) Mohammadan (Islamic) Law (Hanafi) ----Qur’an, Sūrah An-Nisā’ (4:11 & 4:12); D.F. Mulla, Principles of Mohammadan Law, paras. 61, 63 & 65---Classes of heirs---Sharers and residuaries---Deceased left widow, daughter and a surviving brother; no son---Widow and daughter held “sharers” (one-eighth and one-half respectively) and brother held “residuary” entitled to residue---Distribution affirmed on 24-share grid: widow 3/24, daughter 12/24, brother 9/24---Findings of appellate court determining shares upheld; no misreading or non-reading shown. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----S. 115---Civil revision---Scope---Interference with concurrent/appellate findings is not warranted absent jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity---Appellate court’s decree granting declaration/partition in favour of respondents (legal heirs of deceased’s brother) found in accord with Qur’anic injunctions and settled Hanafi principles; revisional challenge failed. (c) Property already alienated—registered sale deed ----Effect on shares of residuary---A portion of the estate had been sold by petitioners through a registered sale deed prior to the suit---Share of the brother (residuary) not to be diminished by such alienation---Final order left the cancellation of the registered sale deed intact as per the appellate decree. Disposition --- Civil Revision dismissed. Appellate court’s determination of shares sustained (widow 3/24; daughter 12/24; brother 9/24). Cancellation of the registered sale deed kept intact. Parties to bear their own costs.

Summary: This case concerns a dispute over the mutation of inheritance that was executed in 1982. The petitioner challenged the mutation, arguing that a certain share of the property was wrongly assigned to the respondent. The petitioner claimed that the property belonged to the petitioner’s father, and the respondent, as the son of a predeceased sibling, was not entitled to inherit. The case was initially decided in favor of the petitioner, but this decision was reversed by the appellate court, which found that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The High Court subsequently upheld this decision, and the petitioner brought the case before the Supreme Court. ------ Issues: ------ 1) Whether the suit filed was barred by the statute of limitations. ------ 2) Whether the law of limitation applies to inheritance matters. ------ 3) Whether the delay in filing the suit could be justified due to the petitioner’s claimed lack of awareness of the mutation. ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Holding: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' rulings that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. ------ Reasoning: The mutation in question occurred in 1982, but the petitioner did not file the suit until 2009, a delay of more than 27 years. The petitioner did not provide an adequate explanation for this delay. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that they were unaware of the mutation because they were residing abroad. The petitioner’s pleadings did not mention any such facts, and no request for exemption from the limitation law was made under Rule 6 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. While the petitioner argued that limitation laws do not apply in inheritance matters, the court clarified that the law of limitation can indeed be relevant in inheritance cases, particularly when there has been undue delay in filing. The court cited precedents where limitation had been applied to inheritance cases, emphasizing that such laws are designed to encourage timely litigation and prevent stale claims. The court found no merit in the petitioner’s claim and ruled that the suit was rightly dismissed by the lower courts due to the lapse of time. The concurrent findings of the trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court were upheld. Outcome: The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. ------ Citations/Precedents: Ghulam Ali (PLD 1990 SC 1) – Limitation in inheritance matters can be subject to exceptions. Mst. Grana (PLD 2014 SC 167) – Limitation laws may apply to inheritance cases under certain circumstances. Mst. Phaphan vs. Muhammad Bakhsh (2005 SCMR 1278) – Delay in inheritance claims can lead to the suit being barred by time. Lal Khan vs. Muhammad Yousaf (PLD 2011 SC 657) – Inheritance claims delayed for decades were dismissed as time-barred. Atta Muhammad vs. Maula Bakhsh (2007 SCMR 1446) – Emphasizes the importance of the law of limitation in legal proceedings to prevent undue delay.

Summary: (Against the order dated 26.06.2024 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, passed in W.P. No. 138 of 2023). Islamic law--- ----Inheritance---Females deprived of their right to inheritance---Father of the parties died about eleven years ago and when the sisters of the petitioner sought their share in his inheritance on 11 October 2021 only then did the petitioner (brother) file a suit for partition, declaration, specific performance and permanent injunction two months thereafter-- -Pendency of the said suit had no effect on the estate of the deceased nor could exclude the legal heirs from their inheritance---Property of a deceased Muslim vested in his legal heirs immediately upon his death---Inheritance rights of the vulnerable members of society, which include females, must be protected---Unfortunately, a practice has developed whereby those defying shariah and the law, facilitated by some lawyers, adopt various nefarious means, including taking the plea of pending litigation in depriving legal heirs from what is rightfully theirs---Filing of present frivolous petition and the dishonest tactics employed by the petitioner justified the dismissal of present petition with costs in the sum of three hundred thousand rupees, which the petitioner was directed to pay equally to the respondents who had been deprived of their legal shares---Said respondents would also be justified to claim mesne profits for all the days that the petitioner did not abide by his 'Consent/Joint Statement' whereby he agreed to have the property evaluated and pay the legal heirs their respective shares as per shariah. Agha Muhammad Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court along with petitioner and Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. In person (Respondents Nos. 3, 4, 6 to 9). Date of hearing: 2nd October, 2024. ORDER Qazi Faez Isa, CJ. We had issued notices to the private respondents expecting that the petitioner may become reasonable and amicably resolve his dispute with his siblings, but unfortunately this has not happened. 2. The case pertains to the estate of Sarfraz Ahmad Khan who passed away in the year 2010, leaving behind five sons, five daughters and a widow, and his estate included a house constructed on 12 marlas and 218 square feet in the city of Rawalpindi ('the Property'). When the petitioner's sisters claimed their inheritance he agreed that the Property be evaluated and had agreed to pay the legal heirs of Sarfraz Ahmad Khan their respective shares as per shariah. The Property, as agreed, was evaluated but the petitioner resiled from his own commitment, and challenged his signed 'Consent/Joint Statement' before the High Court. 3. The impugned judgment refers to said 'Consent/Joint Statement' and noted that, 'When confronted, the learned counsel [for the petitioner] states that his client did not understand what he was signing. He, however, also conceded that his counsel was present on the occasion'. 4. We asked the petitioner what he does and he stated that he retired a year back from the position of Assistant in the Education Department. He also confirmed that he can read and write. Therefore, the ground taken by him to assail the 'Consent/Joint Statement' was unjustified. 5. The learned counsel then referred to the 'Suit for Partition, Declaration, Specific Performance and Permanent Injunction' filed by the petitioner on 15 December 2021. Sarfraz Ahmad Khan died about eleven years ago and when the sisters sought their share in his inheritance on 11 October 2021 only then did the petitioner file the said suit two months thereafter. The pendency of the said suit has no effect on the estate of Sarfraz Ahmad Khan nor can exclude the legal heirs from their inheritance. The property of a deceased Muslim vests in his legal heirs immediately upon his death. We have repeatedly held that the inheritance rights of the vulnerable members of society, which include females, must be protected. Unfortunately, a practice has developed whereby those defying shariah and the law, facilitated by some lawyers, adopt various nefarious means, including taking the plea of pending litigation in depriving legal heirs from what is rightfully theirs. 6. The filing of this frivolous petition and the dishonest tactics employed by the petitioner justifies the dismissal of this petition with costs in the sum of three hundred thousand rupees, which the petitioner is directed to pay equally to the respondents who have been deprived of their legal shares. The said respondents will also be justified to claim mesne profits for all the days that the petitioner does not abide by the said 'Consent/Joint Statement'. MWA/T-10/SC Petition dismissed.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a civil petition challenging the order of the Islamabad High Court regarding the inheritance of the estate of Sarfraz Ahmad Khan, who passed away in 2010. The estate included a house in Rawalpindi. The petitioner, along with his siblings, had agreed to evaluate the property and distribute shares according to Islamic law. However, after agreeing to a “Consent/Joint Statement,” the petitioner later contested it, claiming he did not understand what he had signed, despite being present with his counsel. He also filed a suit for partition and other claims in December 2021, 11 years after his father's death, which was triggered by his sisters' request for their inheritance. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s claim that he did not understand the “Consent/Joint Statement” is justified. ----2- Whether the filing of the suit for partition and related claims affects the inheritance rights of the petitioner’s sisters and other legal heirs. ----3- Whether the petitioner’s actions in contesting the agreement and delaying the distribution of the estate justify the imposition of costs. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found the petitioner’s claim that he did not understand the “Consent/Joint Statement” unjustified. The petitioner, who was an educated individual and was present with his counsel at the time of signing, could not reasonably claim that he was unaware of the contents of the document. The court reiterated that the property of a deceased Muslim vests in the legal heirs immediately upon death, and the pendency of a suit for partition does not bar the rightful distribution of the estate. The petitioner’s actions were seen as an attempt to deprive his sisters of their rightful inheritance, which the court strongly disapproved of. The court emphasized the need to protect the inheritance rights of vulnerable members of society, including female heirs. The petition was dismissed as frivolous, and the court imposed a cost of 300,000 rupees on the petitioner, to be distributed equally among the respondents (the sisters). The court also noted that the respondents were justified in claiming mesne profits for the time they were deprived of their rightful shares.

Summary: (a) Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935 & 1962 ----Inheritance---Limited ownership of widow under custom---Devolution of property on death of widow---Scope and effect---Widow shown as full owner in revenue record---Reversion of property to legal heirs of deceased husband---Petitioners, being legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Ayub, filed a suit claiming that his widow, Mst. Bibi Hawa (later shown as Mst. Hashmat Bibi), was entered as a limited owner under prevailing custom and that upon her death, property should have devolved upon Ayub’s legal heirs under Islamic law---Mutation No. 2844 (dated 05.06.1983) had transferred full ownership to legal heirs of the widow, to the exclusion of other legal heirs of Muhammad Ayub---Held, under prevailing Riwaj before the promulgation of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935, a widow inherited as limited owner, and on her death, the property reverted to the husband’s legal heirs---After promulgation of the Shariat Act, the widow became full owner only to the extent of her Islamic share---Property in dispute was wrongly mutated to her legal heirs as though she owned the entire share of her deceased husband, which was contrary to law. (b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of courts below---Misreading and non-reading of evidence---Interference justified---Trial court and appellate court concurrently dismissed petitioners’ suit without appreciating material on record, including entries in Jamabandis and the implications of customary and Islamic inheritance laws---High Court held that both lower courts misread the evidence and wrongly applied estoppel and limitation, necessitating revisional interference. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 112(2)---Judicial notice of custom---Court may take judicial notice of well-established custom having the force of law---No need to prove customary limitation of widow’s rights in each case where settled precedent exists. **(d) Estoppel---Scope---Petitioners not estopped from asserting legal entitlement merely due to non-objection to compensation received by legal heirs of widow---Such acquiescence did not negate their claim under Islamic law, particularly when only 16 marlas of property were acquired, and petitioners admitted entitlement of respondents to widow’s Shari share. (e) Limitation Act, 1908 ----Art. 120---Continuous possession---Refreshing cause of action---Wrong entries in revenue record---Effect---Where plaintiffs remain in continuous possession and only a portion of the land is acquired or claimed adversely, recurring entries constitute continuing wrongs and refresh the cause of action---Petition held not barred by limitation. **(f) Relief---Correction of mutation---Declaratory relief---Civil court and revisional court have jurisdiction to mould relief even if mutation is not specifically challenged, where necessary to give effect to declaratory findings---Earlier inheritance mutation (No. 2844) in favour of legal heirs of widow set aside and direction issued for fresh mutation as per Shariah shares. Cited Cases: • Maqbool Ahmad v. Fazal-i-Haq 2012 SCMR 917 • Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi PLD 1971 SC 791 • Fayyaz Hussain v. Haji Jan Muhammad 2018 SCMR 698 • Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din PLD 2022 SC 353 • Saadat Khan v. Shahid ur Rehman PLD 2023 SC 362 • Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna 2001 SCMR 1700 • Samar Gul v. Mohabat Khan 2000 SCMR 974 Disposition: Revision allowed. Judgments of trial and appellate courts set aside. Mutation No. 2844 declared void to the extent of excess inheritance. Petitioners declared entitled to Shari shares. Revenue record to be corrected accordingly. Preliminary decree passed with liberty to seek final decree.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 03.10.2023 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Civil Revision No. 100 of 2010). Islamic law--- ----Inheritance---Female legalheirs---Inheritance denied through bogus gift mutations and Razi Nama---An attempt to deprive the widows of the deceased from their inheritance was made through two gift mutations purportedly made by their husband---Petitioners (alleged donees) made an attempt to show that the respondent (one of the widows) had given up her claim/right to inheritance by preparing an undated Razi Nama (agreement), which commenced by stating that it was being executed on behalf of the other widow through her special attorney, namely, "MF", but the same was not signed by him---A fingerprint or thumb impression purporting to be that of respondent (widow) was affixed on it---However, no consideration was given to respondent or received by her for executing the Razi Nama and giving up the claim to her inheritance---For the sake of argument, if it be assumed that respondent had executed the Razi Nama it was wholly without consideration which would make it inconsequential---However, it was tendered to the Court and the Judge without ensuring that respondent had executed it with knowledge of its contents assumed that all of a sudden she had surrendered her rights for which she had filed a suit---On its part the High Court did not attend to the main issue, which was the denial of inheritance, and instead concerned itself with peripheral matters---It was now the twenty-fifth year since respondent, a widow, had been struggling to get her inheritance---Bogus gift mutations were made and dated just before the death of her husband and then the bogus Razi Nama emerged---Unfortunately, and all too often, females continue to be deprived of their inheritance by employing various nefarious tactics, bogus documentation, fraudulent statements with the facilitation of Revenue department officials and some advocates---Courts too at times are not vigilant enough to protect inheritance rights, particularly of females and other vulnerable members of society---And, simple cases such as the present one are not expeditiously decided, and when they do get decided the decision is assailed---Practice of depriving females of their inheritance must be put a stop to, and those who do so must be made to pay substantial costs and not be permitted to benefit from procedural technicalities---Petition was converted into appeal and allowed, impugned judgment and the orders passed by the High Court were set aside, and judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court was restored with the direction that petitioners (alleged donees) shall pay five hundred thousand rupees as costs to the respondent within three months, failing which the said amount shall be recovered from them as arrears of land revenue. Iftikhar Ahmad Bashir, Advocate Supreme Court along with Pervez Akhtar, Petitioner No. 4 for Petitioners. M. Atif Farzauq Raja, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1 and L.Rs. of R.No.3. Date of hearing: 25th September, 2024. ORDER Qazi Faez Isa, CJ. This petition for leave to appeal assails order dated 3 October 2023 of the High Court passed on a civil miscellaneous application submitted in Civil Revision No. 100 of 2010. 2. A simple matter of inheritance has been unduly complicated. The dispute between the parties was with regard to the inheritance of a Muslim man of the sunni sect, namely, Meherban, who died on 26 June 1998, leaving behind two widows, namely, Mst. Aksar Jan (petitioner No. 1) and Mst. Shamim Akhtar (respondent No. 1) (collectively referred to as 'the widows'). An attempt to deprive the widows from their inheritance was made through two gift mutations purportedly made by their husband Meherban. He is supposed to have gifted his entire land holding just a few days before his death to the petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 who are the nephews of Mst. Aksar Jan. 3. Mst. Shamim Akhtar filed a suit in 1999 seeking to obtain her inheritance, which the Appellate Court decreed on 16 January 2010. Civil Revision No. 100 of 2010 was filed challenging the decree. The petitioners made an attempt to show that Mst. Shamim Akhtar had given up her claim/right to inheritance by preparing an undated Razi Nama (agreement), which commenced by stating that it was being executed on behalf of Mst. Aksar Jan through her special attorney, namely, Muhammad Farooq son of Ch. Sultan Khan, but the same was not signed by him. A fingerprint or thumb impression purporting to be that of Mst. Shamim Akhtar was affixed on it. However, no consideration was given to Mst. Shamim Akhtar or received by her for executing the Razi Nama and giving up the claim to her inheritance. For the sake of argument, if it be assumed that Mst. Shamim Akhtar had executed the Razi Nama it was wholly without consideration which would make it inconsequential. However, it was tendered to the Court and the learned Judge without ensuring that Mst. Shamim Akhtar had executed it with knowledge of its contents assumed that all of a sudden she had surrendered her rights for which she had filed a suit. 4. On its part the High Court did not attend to the main issue, which was the denial of inheritance, and instead concerned itself with peripheral matters. It is now the twenty-fifth year since Mst. Shamim Akhtar, a widow, has been struggling to get her inheritance. Bogus gift mutations were made and dated just before the passing of her husband and then the bogus Razi Nama emerged. There is yet another serious aspect of the case, which is that Mst. Aksar Jan joined hands with her nephews, the petitioners Nos. 2 to 6, even though she stood deprived of her own share in the inheritance of her husband; this constituted a clear conflict of interest which regretfully the petitioners' counsel did not consider. 5. The inheritance shares in the estate left by a Muslim is stipulated in the Holy Qur'an and a deceased's legal heirs become owners on his/her death. Unfortunately, and all too often, females continue to be deprived of their inheritance by employing various nefarious tactics, bogus documentation, fraudulent statements with the facilitation of Revenue department officials and some advocates. The courts too at times are not vigilant enough to protect inheritance rights, particularly of females and other vulnerable members of society. And, simple cases such as this one are not expeditiously decided, and when they do get decided the decision is assailed. The practice of depriving females of their inheritance must be put a stop to, and those who do so must be made to pay substantial costs and not be permitted to benefit from procedural technicalities. 6. A simple matter has been dragged out for twenty-five years on account of fake documents prepared and fraudulent tactics employed by the petitioners and their advocates. They fear not shariah nor the law. The impugned judgment overlooked the merits of the case and on a technicality again remanded the case, which in the circumstances of the case was wholly unjustified. 7. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and the orders passed by the High Court in Civil Revision No. 100 of 2010 and restore the judgment and decree dated 16 January 2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi in Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2007. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 (Muhammad Mumraiz, Muhammad Farooq, Parvez Akhtar, Javaid Akhtar and Abid Zaheer) are directed to pay five hundred thousand rupees as costs to Mst. Shamim Akhtar (respondent No. 1) within three months from today, failing which the said amount shall be recovered from them as arrears of land revenue. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned revenue authorities who are directed to implement judgment of the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi dated 16 January 2010 and this order, and they should ensure that the estate of Meherban is distributed amongst his legal heirs in accordance with Islamic shariah immediately, and to submit compliance report to the Senior Member Board of Revenue. 8. This petition is converted into an appeal and allowed in the aforesaid terms. MWA/A-40/SC Appeal allowed.

Summary: (a) Illegal Dispossession Act (2005) – Ss. 3, 4, 5 – Criminal Procedure Code (1898) – Ss. 342, 544-A Illegal dispossession—Elements of offense—Dispute over inherited property—Complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 alleging forcible occupation of agricultural land—Trial court convicted appellants to 5 years R.I. with fine and compensation—Held, to constitute an offense under the Act, both an unlawful act (actus reus) and criminal intent (mens rea) must be established—Act applies to property grabbers, not family disputes over inheritance—Prosecution failed to prove that appellants were land grabbers or members of a land mafia—Conviction set aside. (b) Civil & Revenue Jurisdiction—Disputed Ownership—Scope of Criminal Proceedings Property disputes—Illegal Dispossession Act applicability—Held, when ownership and possession disputes arise between co-owners, heirs, or parties with competing title claims, civil and revenue courts have exclusive jurisdiction—Criminal courts should not interfere in matters requiring partition, demarcation, or inheritance determination—Trial court erred in convicting appellants instead of referring matter to a civil or revenue court—Reliance placed on Muhammad Ramzan v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 72). (c) Burden of Proof—Failure to Establish Mens Rea—Effect Forcible dispossession—Standard of proof—Prosecution must establish beyond doubt that dispossession was unlawful and intentional—Complainant admitted that accused were co-owners in some portions of the disputed land—Prosecution witnesses failed to rebut defense claim that possession was based on inheritance and private partition—Trial court wrongly convicted appellants without clear evidence of illegal occupation—Conviction set aside—Trial court directed to regulate possession through plenary jurisdiction. ----- Disposition Criminal appeal allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Trial court directed to secure property and refer parties to the civil/revenue court for resolution of ownership and possession disputes.

Summary: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)--- ----Ss.15 & 16---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 27(2)(1)---Admission for fellowship training to enroll doctors for FCPS Part-II training in various specialties of affiliated public sector hospitals---Policy requiring married women to follow their husband's domicile---Constitutionality---Exclusion from purview of Art. 27 of the Constitution---Consistency of policy with the principles enunciated in Succession Act, 1925---Provincial autonomy---Contention of the petitioner was that since she had joined the training, therefore, the same could not be terminated---Validity---Provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over devolved subjects, including health and can impose conditions like domicile or residence for appointments in these areas---Policy of Medical institution in question i.e., PGMI regarding domicile of married women was not hit by Art.27(2) of the Constitution, as it was excluded from its purview---Policy was consistent with the principles enshrined in Ss.15 & 16 of the Succession Act, 1925---Order obtained through concealment of facts could be rescinded under S.21 of the General Clauses Act and the authority granting the order was not barred from taking corrective action---Policy of PGMI requiring married women to follow their husband's domicile was rational, logical, and reasonable---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Inspector General of Police Quetta and another v. Fida Muhammad and others 2022 SCMR 1583; Province of Punjab through Executive District Officer (Education) Rawalpindi and another v. Ruqia Islam 2020 SCMR 490 and Amna Rehman and others v. Deputy District Education Officer (W) Elementary and others 2002 PLC (C. S) 1080 ref. Shabnam v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 4 others 2015 PLC (C.S) 1111; Mst. Najam Un Nisa v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Education Khyber Pahtunkhwa 2021 PLC (C.S) 434; Mst. Fareeda Noor v.Mehar Muhammad Nawaz Sial and another 2005 CLC 669; Dr. Mst. Munawar Zaheen v. The Secretary Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore and 2 others PLD 1974 Lahore 36 and Mst. Shaista Gul v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and 05 others W.P. No. 564-M of 2019 rel. Inayat Ullah for the Petitioner. Shah Faisal Utmankhel, Advocate General for Official Respondents of Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Mohammad Asif Yousafzai for Respondent No. 5 (CEO, PGMI Peshawar). Date of hearing: 2nd May, 2024.

Summary: The present case involves two consolidated petitions, Civil Petition No. 3210-L/2023 and Civil Petition No. 5181/2023, challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the appeals against lower court decisions in favor of the plaintiff, Mst. Yasmin Begum. The suit was originally filed by the plaintiff's son, Syed Raza Haider, under Order XXXII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), asserting that the plaintiff, who suffered from chronic mental ailments, was deprived of her inherited property through fraudulent actions by her siblings. The plaintiff's share in both agricultural land in District Sahiwal and a residential house in Lahore was allegedly transferred by one of her siblings (Defendant No. 1) based on a disputed power of attorney and oral sale claims. The trial court, followed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, a decision later upheld by the Lahore High Court. ---- Issues ---- Whether the plaintiff was deprived of her inherited property through fraudulent transactions by her siblings. ----1) Whether the plaintiff’s mental condition affected the validity of transactions executed on her behalf. Whether Defendant No. 8 could establish his status as a bona fide purchaser under Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that: The plaintiff’s mental ailment, supported by evidence, was proven on a preponderance of evidence. The defendants failed to discharge the onus of proving that her mental condition was stable when the power of attorney and subsequent transactions occurred. The High Court was correct in upholding the lower courts' findings that the transactions based on the power of attorney and alleged oral sale were not bona fide, as they lacked credible evidence to support the defendants’ claims. ----- Regarding the bona fide purchaser defense, Defendant No. 8 failed to fulfill the requirements of Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, which mandates proof of good faith, due consideration, and reasonable inquiry by a purchaser. ----- As no substantial question of law was raised, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. ------ Citations/Precedents Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Lal Khatoon and others (PLD 2011 SC 296) – Requirements for establishing bona fide purchaser status under Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Gulzar Ahmed and others v. Ammad Aslam and others (2022 SCMR 1433) – Affirmation of principles for bona fide purchaser requirements. Amjad Sharif Qazi and others v. Salim Ullah Faridi and others (PLD 2006 SC 777) – Scope of second appellate court’s jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC. Haji Sultan Ahmed through Legal Heirs v. Naeem Raza (1996 SCMR 1729) – Principles on concurrent findings by lower courts and limited interference by appellate courts under Section 100 of CPC.