Summary: The petitioners filed separate petitions seeking leave to appeal against the consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld concurrent findings by the trial court and the Additional District & Sessions Judge. The dispute concerned the inheritance of properties, including agricultural land and a house, by the heirs of Faqir Syed Siraj ud Din. The plaintiff, Mst. Yasmin Begum, had her interests represented by her son, Syed Raza Haider, due to her alleged mental incapacity. The plaintiff’s son alleged fraudulent transactions executed by her sibling (defendant no. 1), using a power of attorney to transfer the plaintiff's share in property without her consent. ------- Issues: ------- 1) Whether the plaintiff’s mental incapacity at the time of the transactions rendered the property transfers invalid. ------- 2) Whether defendant no. 1, who executed the transactions under a power of attorney, committed fraud by transferring the plaintiff’s share without proper authority or fair consideration. ------- 3) Whether defendant no. 8 could be considered a bona fide purchaser under Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. ------- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to dismiss the appeals based on the following reasoning: ------- Mental Incapacity: Evidence established that the plaintiff suffered from chronic mental illness, which impacted her ability to manage property transactions. The trial court found, based on a preponderance of evidence, that the plaintiff was mentally incapacitated at the time of the property transfers. Burden of Proof on Defendants: Defendant no. 1, who orchestrated the property transfers under a general power of attorney, failed to provide credible evidence to validate the legitimacy of these transactions. His conflicting statements and failure to provide reliable testimony led to a ruling against him. Bona Fide Purchaser: Defendant no. 8 claimed to be a bona fide purchaser but could not substantiate that he had met the criteria for a bona fide purchase as per established legal principles. This included demonstrating due consideration, good faith, and reasonable care in making inquiries before purchase. ------- Concurrent Findings: Given that the findings of both the trial and appellate courts were based on substantive evidence, the High Court found no grounds to interfere under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Supreme Court affirmed this position, stating that no substantial question of law was raised to justify revisiting these findings. The Court dismissed the petitions for lack of legal merit, reiterating that under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, no significant question of law warranted Supreme Court intervention. ------- Citations/Precedents: Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Lal Khatoon and others (PLD 2011 SC 296): Established criteria for bona fide purchasers under Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, requiring good faith, due consideration, and proper inquiries. Gulzar Ahmed and others v. Ammad Aslam and others (2022 SCMR 1433): Reaffirmed that bona fide purchasers must establish that the purchase was made without dishonest intent and with reasonable inquiries. Amjad Sharif Qazi and others v. Salim Ullah Faridi and others (PLD 2006 SC 777) and Haji Sultan Ahmed through Legal Heirs v. Naeem Raza (1996 SCMR 1729): Provided that reappraisal of evidence by the second appellate court is restricted under Section 100 of the CPC, only permissible when there is clear misreading or overlooking of critical evidence. The Court’s decision emphasized the importance of mental capacity in property transactions, the burden of proof on the party claiming bona fide purchaser status, and the limited scope of appellate review under Section 100 of the CPC. The petitions were dismissed without leave for appeal.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.)—Section 115—Revisional jurisdiction—Scope: The appellate court's endorsement of the arbitrator’s award as a rule of the court was found to be flawed due to the absence of sufficient reasoning and a lack of compliance with legal standards, particularly under Sections 17 and 26-A of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The revisional court clarified that it is the duty of the court to critically examine an arbitrator’s award for any legal defects before confirming it as a rule of the court, irrespective of whether objections are raised. (b) Arbitration Act, 1940—Sections 17, 26-A, and 30—Judicial scrutiny of awards: The arbitrator's award failed to meet the statutory requirement of providing detailed reasoning for the conclusions reached. The court emphasized that an award devoid of reasons cannot be made a rule of the court. The absence of judicial scrutiny and failure to evaluate the award's compliance with legal standards warranted its rejection and necessitated a remand for fresh adjudication. (c) Inheritance—Relinquishment deeds—Public policy: The court held that the purported relinquishment of inheritance rights by female legal heirs was void, being contrary to public policy and Islamic injunctions. The Supreme Court precedents, including PLD 1990 SC 1 and 2016 SCMR 763, were relied upon to assert that such relinquishment is not only unconstitutional but also violates Islamic principles, emphasizing wealth circulation through inheritance. (d) Arbitration proceedings—Standards of fairness and compliance: The court found that the arbitrator conducted proceedings without adequately considering the trial court’s findings, failing to uphold procedural fairness. Furthermore, the appellate court's dismissal of the applicants’ objections without substantive judicial evaluation contravened the mandate of the Arbitration Act, 1940. (e) Female inheritance rights—Protection under Islamic law and the Constitution: The judgment reinforced the inviolability of female heirs' inheritance rights, criticizing customs and agreements that aim to deprive them of their lawful share in agricultural or other properties. Such practices were deemed void for being inconsistent with the law and the Constitution. ----Disposition: The revision application was allowed. The arbitrator's award, as well as the appellate court's judgment and decree, were set aside. The case was remanded to the appellate court with directions to adjudicate the appeal on its merits within one month.

Summary: Background:Civil Petition No. 4194 of 2023 was filed by Tariq Zubair Khan against Mst. Tabassum Khan and others in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petition challenged the order dated 27.09.2023 by the Islamabad High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order concerning the auction of property inherited from their deceased parents. The property in question is House No.582, Street No.13, Sector G-10/1, Islamabad. A preliminary decree for partition was issued, followed by an auction conducted by a Court Auctioneer.---Issues:The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Islamabad High Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal regarding his objections to the auction process. Specifically, the petition addressed whether the objections were correctly handled under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), particularly focusing on the application of Order XXI, Rules 84 and 90.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's ruling. The Court found that the petitioner had not properly challenged the auction under the relevant rules of the CPC intended for such objections (Order XXI, Rule 89 or 90). Instead, he filed under Rule 84, which pertains to the immediate payment obligations of a purchaser, not to the auction's procedural challenges.The Court noted that objections to the auction process on grounds of material irregularity or fraud should have been made under Rule 90, which also requires depositing 20% of the auction proceeds as a condition to entertain such objections. The petitioner failed to meet these procedural requirements, leading to the dismissal of his objections and subsequent appeals.---Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Attique vs Jami Limited and others (PLD 2010 SC 993): Discussed the procedural requirements and the effects of auction sales under CPC, highlighting that title transfer is contingent upon the confirmation of the auction sale and compliance with Rules 89, 90, and 91 of Order XXI.Mst. Samrana Nawaz and others vs MCB Bank Ltd and others (PLD 2021 SC 581): Addressed the requirements under the second proviso to Order XXI, Rule 90, clarifying the timing and amount of the deposit required to challenge an auction sale.

Summary: Issues:Whether Rabia Rafique and Ali Imran are the legal heirs of the deceased, Imran Azam, entitled to inheritance rights.The validity of the previous judgments and decrees in light of the alleged fraud and misrepresentation by the respondents.The applicability of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to review the judgments based on allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court dismissed the applications filed by Muhammad Siddique and Irfan Azam, challenging the legal heir status of Rabia Rafique and Ali Imran. The Court found no substantial evidence of fraud or misrepresentation that could invalidate the previous judgments recognizing the respondents as legal heirs. The Court emphasized that the allegations primarily pertained to disputes between the parties rather than fraud upon the Court. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the doctrine of election precludes the applicants from pursuing multiple remedies once one has been exhausted, especially after the dismissal of a review petition by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.The Court also clarified that the dissolution of marriage through Khula does not become ineffective due to non-issuance of a divorce certificate by the Union Council, addressing the applicant's claim regarding the marital status of Rabia Rafique. Additionally, the birth certificate of Ali Imran and other corroborative evidence sufficiently established his paternity, thus negating the applicant's claim of paternity.----Citations/Precedents:The Court referenced several legal principles and past judgments, including the interpretation of Section 12(2) of the CPC, the finality of Supreme Court decisions, the doctrine of election in legal remedies, and the effectiveness of Khula without a divorce certificate from the Union Council. Specific case citations include "DR. AKHLAQ AHMED V. MST. KISHWAR SULTANA & OTHERS" (PLD 1983 Supreme Court 169), "MST. LAILA QAYYUM V. FAWAD QAYUM AND OTHERS" (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 449), and "TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN V. DEVAN SUGAR MILLS LIMITED AND OTHERS" (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 828), among others, to support the Court's reasoning and conclusions.

Summary: (a) Essential Ingredients of a Valid Gift – Offer, Acceptance, and Possession ----A valid gift must include a clear offer, an acceptance by the donee, and delivery of possession. The court reiterated that an oral gift must satisfy three essential elements: (i) an offer by the donor, (ii) an acceptance by the donee, and (iii) the transfer of possession. The written statement submitted by the petitioner did not explicitly describe these elements, nor was any supporting evidence provided during trial. Therefore, the court found the alleged gift to be legally ineffective. Cited Case Law: Bilal Hussain Shah v. Dilawar Shah (PLD 2018 SC 698) Khalid Hussain v. Nazir Ahmad (2021 SCMR 1986) (b) Evidence Beyond Pleadings – Bar on Introducing New Claims ----A party cannot introduce evidence that extends beyond the scope of its original pleadings. The court held that a party must plead specific facts necessary to establish its claim and cannot introduce additional evidence beyond those pleadings. The petitioner failed to plead the essential elements of the alleged oral gift and, therefore, could not rely on extraneous evidence to establish its validity. Cited Case Law: Zulfiqar v. Shahdat Khan (PLD 2007 SC 582) Muhammad Nawaz v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue (2014 SCMR 914) Combined Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Wali Bhai (PLD 2016 SC 730) Saddaruddin v. Sultan Khan (2021 SCMR 642) (c) Burden of Proof on the Donee in Cases of Gift of Inheritable Property ----A donee claiming exclusion of legal heirs must prove the gift with unimpeachable evidence. Since the property in question was inherited from the deceased Muhammad Sharif, the burden was on the petitioner (the alleged donee) to prove the execution and validity of the gift. The court emphasized that a legal heir cannot be deprived of their rightful share unless the gift is conclusively established through strong, independent evidence. Cited Case Law: Mushtaq Ul Aarifin v. Mumtaz Muhammad (2022 SCMR 55) Mst. Parveen v. Muhammad Pervaiz (2022 SCMR 64) Mst. Hayat Bibi v. Alamzeb (2022 SCMR 13) (d) Limitation in Inheritance Cases – No Bar on Claims of Legal Heirs ----In matters of inheritance, limitation does not bar legal heirs from claiming their rightful shares. The court dismissed the argument of limitation raised by the petitioner, noting that the respondent had been living abroad and only learned about the disputed mutation two months before filing the suit. Additionally, as inheritance rights are vested at the time of the decedent’s death, limitation does not apply to claims by rightful legal heirs. (e) Preferential Treatment of Appellate Court Findings ----Where appellate and trial court findings conflict, appellate court findings are preferred unless contrary evidence exists. The court held that appellate court findings should be given greater weight unless there are compelling reasons to set them aside. In this case, the appellate court properly applied the law, while the trial court had misappreciated the evidence. Cited Case Law: Amjad Ikram v. Mst. Asiya Kausar (2015 SCMR 1) Madan Gopal v. Maran Bepari (PLD 1969 SC 617) Muhammad Nawaz v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan (2013 SCMR 1300) Disposition: Revision Petition Dismissed—Claimed Gift Declared Invalid—Legal Heirs Entitled to Their Inherited Shares.

Summary: Issues:Whether the Release Deed executed in favor of Ihtisham-ul-Haq was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation.The legal standing and implications of the Release Deed vis-?-vis the appellants' claim to the property.Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Islamabad High Court and restoring the concurrent judgments and decrees of the trial and appellate courts. The Court found that the Release Deed was indeed secured through fraud and misrepresentation by Ihtisham-ul-Haq, who was in a dominant position and manipulated his sisters into signing the document under the pretense that it was for the transfer of the property to all legal heirs. The evidence suggested that no consideration was paid to the sisters for relinquishing their shares, nor was there any family settlement to justify the execution of the Release Deed. The Supreme Court emphasized that a release deed and a gift deed are distinct instruments with specific legal requirements, and in this case, the elements of a valid gift were absent. The Court also noted the societal pressures that often lead to female heirs being deprived of their rightful inheritance, reiterating the need to protect vulnerable individuals from such injustices.----Citations/Precedents:Ghulam Ali and others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1): Discussed the unlikely scenario of male co-heirs relinquishing rights in favor of female heirs and highlighted the societal pressures that can lead to such relinquishments.Muhammad Shamim through Legal heirs v. Mst. Nisar Fatima through Legal Heirs and others (2010 SCMR 18): Emphasized that rightful owners cannot be deprived of their shares unless there is conscious abandonment or relinquishment.Sadar Din v. Mst. Khatoon and others (2004 SCMR 1102): Found an agreement of relinquishment without consideration to be void under Section 25 of the Contract Act, 1872.Mirza Abid Baig v. Zahid Sabir (Deceased) through LRs and others (2020 SCMR 601): Highlighted the frequent deprivation of female relatives of their legal entitlement to inheritance by male family members.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a suit for declaration seeking the cancellation of two mutations. The first mutation, executed on 24th June 1996, allegedly transferred land owned by the petitioner's mother to the first respondent without the petitioner's knowledge. The second mutation, executed on 21st March 2006, involved the further alienation of the land to a second respondent through a gift. The petitioner claimed the transactions were carried out fraudulently, depriving him of his rightful inheritance. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner. However, the appellate court overturned this decision, which prompted the petitioner to file this civil revision petition. ----Issues: 1- Was the suit barred by the law of limitation? 2- Were the mutations validly executed, and were they legally enforceable? 3- Did the petitioner’s mother execute the sale mutation under undue influence? 4- Was the appellate court justified in overturning the trial court’s decision? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the suit was barred by the law of limitation. The possession of the land was transferred to the respondent in 1996, and the petitioner had delayed challenging the transaction for over a decade. The court found that the petitioner had knowledge of the mutations earlier than claimed, and his assertion that his mother was unaware of the transactions until her death was unsupported by evidence. The appellate court's judgment was affirmed as it was based on proper analysis and appraisal of the evidence. The trial court had misread certain key facts, leading to an erroneous judgment. Consequently, the civil revision petition was dismissed, and the appellate court’s decision stood. ----Citations/Precedents: Faqir Ali vs. Sakina Bibi (PLD 2022 SC 85) Ghulam Farid vs. Sher Rehman (2016 SCMR 862) Rehmatullah vs. Saleh Khan (2007 SCMR 729) Faheeman Begum vs. Islam-ud-Din (2023 SCMR 1402) Salamat Ali vs. Muhammad Din (PLD 2022 SC 353) Haji Muhammad Younis vs. Mst. Farukh Sultan (2022 SCMR 1282) Mst. Rabia Gula vs. Muhammad Janan (2022 SCMR 1009) Muhammad Nawaz vs. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan (2013 SCMR 1300) Amjad Ikram vs. Mst. Asiya Kausar (2015 SCMR 1) Muhammad Hafeez vs. District Judge, Karachi East (2008 SCMR 398) Mst. Saeeda vs. Muhammad Naeem (PLD 2013 Sindh 39) Muhammad Akram vs. Mst. Noor Begum (PLD 2019 SC 599)

Summary: ''Section 115 CPC---- Muhammadan Law --- Share of Inheritance --- The moment a Muhammadan Muslim closes his eyes and passes away, all his legal heirs by operation of law automatically become owners in the estate of deceased. Any unauthorized entry in the Revenue Record in contravention of scheme of law of inheritance has no worth and legality in the eyes of law. Civil Revision Allowed'' ---- Issues:Whether the petitioners, as legal heirs, were entitled to co-ownership of the disputed property.Whether the impugned documents (mutations, sale deeds) deprived the petitioners of their rights and should be canceled.Whether the plaintiffs were legal heirs of Fazal Hussain Baig, given the contention that Shafqat Parveen was not his daughter.----High Court's Analysis:The High Court scrutinized the evidence, including witness testimonies and documentary evidence (mutations, Nikah Nama, legal proceedings from related suits).The Court found that the petitioners successfully established their lineage and legal heir status, despite the lower courts' errors in evaluating the evidence and the law.---Conclusion:The Lahore High Court allowed the civil revision, setting aside the decisions of the lower courts.The Court decreed the petitioners' suit for declaration as prayed for, thus affirming their entitlement to the disputed property and nullifying the challenged documents and mutations.

Summary: The original suit filed by Mat. Zebun Nisa and her daughter sought declaration for their shares in the property against their dower and legal/sharia rights, respectively. The defendants resisted the suit, leading to multiple remands and the eventual dismissal of the suit.---Issue:Whether the offer by plaintiff No.1 (Mat. Zebun Nisa) to resolve the dispute through an oath on the Holy Quran and the subsequent acceptance and fulfillment of this offer by the defendants barred plaintiff No.1 from pursuing her claim further?Whether plaintiff No.2 (Ms. Hurmat) had a competent claim to her share in the property during the lifetime of Muhammad Sherin (her grandfather), given the provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?---Holding:The court held that plaintiff No.1 was estopped from pressing her claim further due to her offer to resolve the dispute through an oath, which was accepted and fulfilled by the defendants.The court found plaintiff No.2's claim to be incompetent and premature, as she had no locus standi to claim her share in the property during the lifetime of her grandfather, Muhammad Sherin.--Reasoning:The court reasoned that the principle of estoppel and the doctrine of election barred plaintiff No.1 from retracting her offer, which was duly accepted and fulfilled by the defendants. Additionally, the court referenced multiple precedents, including the Supreme Court cases, to reinforce the doctrines of estoppel, election, and the rights of property owners to alienate their property. For plaintiff No.2, the court noted that the suit was filed during the lifetime of Muhammad Sherin, making her claim for a share in his property incompetent and premature, as her legal right to inheritance had not yet materialized.---Rule of Law:The judgment relied on the principles of estoppel and election to bar claims that have been resolved by mutual agreement or where the claimant has made a definitive choice in resolving a dispute. It also emphasized the legal right of a property owner to alienate their property and the timing of inheritance claims under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.---Precedents relied by the court: Stir Miviib-Rehman Muhammad Hassani Washuk and others (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 718): This case established that once a litigant has chosen a certain course of action or abandoned a particular plea, they cannot reopen the matter simply because the initial choice did not yield favorable results.---Silver Star Insurance Company Limited Lahore through Chief Executive Vs. Messrs Kamal Pipes Industries, Lahore and another (2028 CLD 1342, Lahore): This case likely deals with the principles of estoppel and/or the finality of decisions made based on chosen remedies.---Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited Vs. Devan Sugar Mills Limited and others (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 828): This case might discuss the implications of legal choices and the consequences of such choices on subsequent legal actions.---Lucky Cement Ltd. through Authorized Attorney Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division and 03 others (2021 PTD 835): This precedent might be related to the legal doctrine of estoppel or the principles governing the finality of decisions in commercial or tax-related disputes.----Ghulam Muhammad Vs. Mian Muhammad and another (2007 SCMR 231): This case affirmed the right of a Muslim owner to dispose of their property by way of gift, and such action cannot be contested by the heirs who are deprived of their shares as a result.---Br. Muhammad Javaid Shah Vs. Syed Rashid Arshad and others (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 212): This case likely discusses the principles of estoppel and waiver, particularly in the context of failing to object to a fact or action that could affect one's legal rights.

Summary: Facts:The case involves a series of civil revisions and a criminal original petition arising from disputes related to land ownership and inheritance. Mst. Suraiya Bibi filed a suit for declaration of her ownership to a share of land, alleging fraudulent inheritance mutations that deprived her of her legal share. The suit was decreed in her favor, leading to subsequent legal battles over the execution of the decree and the correction of revenue records.------Issues:--Whether an objection petition by a judgment debtor is maintainable in the absence of an execution petition by the decree holder.--The proper execution of a declaratory decree in revenue records and the impact on subsequent mutations.----Judgment:The court held that an objection petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is maintainable by a judgment debtor even in the absence of an execution petition by the decree holder, following the principle established in Riaz Hussain and others v. Muhammad Akbar and others (2003 SCMR 181). The court also found that the revenue authorities improperly executed the declaratory decree by canceling subsequent mutations in their entirety, rather than to the extent of Mst. Suraiya Bibi's share. The court dismissed all petitions, upholding the decisions of the lower courts to correct the revenue records and protect the rights of respondent No.1 (Muhammad Mushtaq).---Rationale:The court reasoned that all questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree arising between the parties must be determined by the executing court under Section 47 of the CPC. The broad scope of this section is meant to include any question that affects the rights of the parties during the execution of the decree. The court also emphasized the need for precise and prompt filing of contempt petitions, which was not met in the case of Ghulam Mustafa's petition.---Citations/Precedents:Riaz Hussain and others v. Muhammad Akbar and others (2003 SCMR 181) regarding the maintainability of an objection petition under Section 47 of CPC by a judgment debtor.---Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others (2010 SCMR 1630) and Abdul Khaliq (Deceased) through L.R.s. and others Vs. Ch. Rehmat Ali (Deceased) through L.R.s. and others (2012 SCMR 508) on the revisional court's limitations in substituting findings of lower courts.----Salamat Ali and others v. Muhammad Din and others (PLJ 2023 SC 8) regarding the revisional court's role in reassessing findings of fact by lower courts.----Mian Qadiruddin and another v. Mian Ghulam Yaqoob Bandey and another (1977 SCMR 475) on the requirements for initiating contempt proceedings.