Summary: (a) Civil Procedure—Power of Attorney & Validity of Gift Mutations: ----Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Arts. 79 & 129(g); Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Execution of General Power of Attorney and validity of gift mutations—Burden of proof—Petitioner claimed ownership of the disputed property based on a general power of attorney executed by his father, authorizing another to effectuate a gift in his favor—Document failed to explicitly confer power to alienate or dispose of the property—Petitioner failed to produce the second marginal witness as required under Art.79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, leading to an adverse presumption under Art.129(g)—Scribe’s testimony could not substitute for an attesting witness—Reliance placed on Fida Muhammad v. Pir Muhammad Khan (PLD 1985 SC 341) and Mst. Naila Kausar v. Sardar Muhammad Bakhsh (2016 SCMR 1781). (b) Law of Gift—Essential Conditions of a Valid Gift: ----Gift transaction—Legal requirements—Petitioner failed to establish offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession—Mere mutation entry does not constitute a valid gift—No evidence was produced regarding when and where the donor expressed intent to gift the property, rendering the transaction legally defective—Reliance placed on Faqir Ali v. Sakina Bibi (PLD 2022 SC 85). (c) Inheritance Rights—Exclusion of Legal Heirs through Alleged Gift: ----Right of female heirs—Court's scrutiny of gifts purportedly made to deprive heirs—Donor’s daughters were not involved in the alleged gift proceedings—Donor was of advanced age and allegedly incapacitated—His death shortly after the disputed mutations cast further doubt on the transaction—In the absence of specific instructions from the donor, the alleged gift could not be sustained—Reliance placed on Fareed v. Muhammad Tufail (2018 SCMR 139). (d) Mutation Entries—No Title Conferred: ----Mutation per se is not proof of ownership but merely a record of a prior oral transaction—Burden of proof lies on the beneficiary to establish not just the mutation but also the underlying transaction—Failure to do so rendered the disputed gift mutations void—Reliance placed on Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din (PLD 2011 SC 241). Disposition: Civil revision petition dismissed—Appellate Court’s judgment upheld—Mutations canceled as petitioner failed to prove foundational document of general power of attorney.

Summary: The basic issue relates to actual/correct date of death of the donor, namely, Jalal-ud-Din who admittedly was predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The petitioners/defendants claim that the donor was their maternal grandfather and validly made the gift. It is also assertion of the petitioners that the respondents assailed the impugned mutation on the revenue side and their claim was rejected and hence, subsequent suit on the same subject is hit by doctrine of res-judicata and the suit was badly time barred, while it is case of the respondents that the donor was already dead on the date of recording of the impugned mutation, after suffering from serious illness, and the correct date of death has been clearly established through the inquiry conducted by the Officials. Held that any decision, on the revenue side, does not operate as bar on a subsequent civil suit, more particularly, when question of fraud is involved in respect of which the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities is barred, for the reasons that the proceedings before the Revenue Officers and/or the Revenue Courts are summarily conducted without recording of evidence. Section 11 of the CPC that is based on doctrine of res-judicata clearly stipulates that no subsequent suit shall be entertained in which the matter is directly and substantially the same in a former suit between the same parties and decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, Section 11 of the CPC is applicable only where earlier as well as the subsequent proceedings are before the Courts, which are competent to decide both the matters. Further held that it is by now well-settled that a mutation by itself does not create any title unless it can be substantiated to be backed by a valid transaction more particularly if the transaction is in the nature of Hiba depriving legal heirs of the donor. In the instant case, such detail is conspicuous by its absence inasmuch as neither the time of offer and acceptance of the gift has been mentioned in the written statement nor any witness has been produced in support of the said contentions.

Summary: Background: This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Khushab, and Civil Judge Class-I, Noorpur Thal, regarding the inheritance rights of a woman (referred to as “respondent”), a descendant of the deceased, Janan Khan. The dispute centered on the property owned by Janan Khan, with the petitioners (his other heirs) contending that the respondent was not entitled to a share. The respondent sought a declaration that inheritance mutations relating to the legacy of Janan Khan had been illegally sanctioned, excluding her predecessor, Walayat Khatoon, from the estate. -----Issues: 1- Whether the suit was time-barred. 2- Whether the inheritance mutations were valid and in accordance with the law, or whether they were based on fraud and misrepresentation, depriving the respondent of her rightful inheritance. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Limitation: The court rejected the argument that the suit was time-barred, noting that the respondent had no knowledge of the disputed mutations and initiated the suit promptly upon learning of the alleged fraud. It emphasized that limitation could not bar someone from claiming their rightful inheritance if fraud was involved. Validity of Mutations: The court found that the respondent, as the legal heir of Walayat Khatoon, was entitled to a share in Janan Khan’s property. The petitioners had consistently argued that Walayat Khatoon was not Janan Khan's daughter, but the relationship was conceded during the hearing. The court held that the petitioners could not later argue that she was disinherited under customary law, particularly as they had not raised this defense earlier. The court emphasized that the estate should devolve according to Shariat law, which grants daughters inheritance rights. The petition was dismissed, and the judgment of the lower courts was affirmed, recognizing the respondent’s entitlement to her share of the property. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. J-I.V.V71-IN and others v. Mst. TAGGI through L.Rs. and others (PLD 2006 SC 322) Shahro and others v. Mst. Fatima and others (PLD 1998 SC 1512) Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1)

Summary: Issue:Whether Shumaila Syed, claiming to be the widow of the deceased, should be impleaded as a party in the suit concerning the deceased's estate, despite the petitioners' contention that she was divorced by the deceased.Rule:The court relied on Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading necessary parties to a suit and Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, regarding presumptions about the existence of facts. The principle that a state of things shown to exist is presumed to continue until proven otherwise was applied.Analysis:The courts below did not find conclusive proof of divorce between respondent No.3 and the deceased. The absence of a divorce decree or certificate from the union council led to the presumption, under Article 129(d) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, that the marriage between Shumaila Syed and the deceased continued until his death. The Supreme Court's judgment in Haji Allah Ditta through Legal heirs and others vs. Ahmad Nawaz and others (2003 SCMR 981) supported this presumption, emphasizing that the continuity of marriage is presumed unless disproved.Conclusion:The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the orders of the lower courts that allowed the impleadment of Shumaila Syed as a party in the suit as the presumed widow of the deceased, Syed Saqlain Shahana. The court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders.Citations:Order I Rule 10 CPCArticle 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984Haji Allah Ditta through Legal heirs and others vs. Ahmad Nawaz and others, 2003 SCMR 981

Summary: Background: The case involves a dispute over the partition of land. Mst. Ghulam Bibi (respondent No. 1) filed for partition of her inherited property before the Assistant Commissioner, Tank. Afsar Khan (petitioner) opposed the partition, arguing that the land had been developed into a residential area, thus removing the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. Additionally, a declaratory suit was pending before the Civil Judge in Tank. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the petitioner’s objections. Subsequent appeals and revisions to the Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, and Member-I Board of Revenue Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were also dismissed. Consequently, the petitioners filed this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution before the Peshawar High Court. ------ Issues: ------ 1) Whether the revenue authorities had the jurisdiction to partition land that had been allegedly developed into a residential area. ------ 2) Whether the pendency of a declaratory suit before a civil court bars the revenue authority from proceeding with partition. ------ 3) Whether the petitioners' actions, including the development of the land into a colony without proper approvals, affect the partition rights of the co-sharers. ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition, ruling that: Mere plotting of the land did not change its nature from agricultural to residential, and the revenue authorities retained jurisdiction over partition proceedings. No houses had been built on the land, as noted in the Patwari's report, so the property had not been fully transformed into a residential colony. The petitioners' development of the land into a residential area without obtaining legal approvals did not deprive the revenue authorities of their jurisdiction to partition the land. Furthermore, partitioning the land was necessary to protect the rights of all co-sharers, including the respondent. The petitioners were aware of the respondent’s share in the property but sought to create delays by developing the land without proper approvals and opposing the partition. The court condemned this as an attempt to prolong litigation and deprive the respondent of her rightful inheritance. The court criticized the practice of male heirs using fraud and delaying tactics to deprive female heirs of their rightful inheritance, referencing a prior Supreme Court ruling on similar issues. The petition was dismissed with costs. ------ Citations/Precedents: "Mst. Parveen (deceased) through L.Rs v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others" (2022 SCMR 64) "Faiz Ullah and others v. Dilawar Hussain and others" (2022 SCMR 1647) "Faqir Ali and others v. Sakina Bibi and others" (PLD 2022 SC 85) "Khan Muhammad through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Khatoon Bibi and others" (2017 SCMR 1476) "Mst. Gohar Khanum and others v. Mst. Jamila Jan and others" (2014 SCMR 801) "Ghulam Qasim and others v. Mst. Razia Begum and others" (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 812)

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---- S. 96--- Regular First Appeal---Deprivation of inheritance rights---Challenge to mutation of inherited property---Respondent (legal heir) challenged Mutation No. 226, dated 04.04.1981, which allegedly deprived her of her rightful share in her father’s estate---Trial court decreed the suit in favor of respondent, declaring the mutation illegal and restoring her share in the inheritance---Appellants (brothers of respondent) contended that the respondent voluntarily transferred her share in their favor through the impugned mutation---Appellants failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate their claim of a voluntary transfer of ownership by respondent---Court reaffirmed that a mere entry in the revenue record does not confer title and must be supported by evidence of a valid transaction---Appeal dismissed. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984)--- ---- Arts. 119, 120 & 79---Burden of proof---Validity of Hiba (gift) mutation---In a case where inheritance rights are denied on the basis of a gift, the burden of proof lies upon the donee to establish that: (i) the donor had full knowledge of the transfer, (ii) the gift was made voluntarily, and (iii) possession was delivered---Appellants, who were beneficiaries of the disputed mutation, failed to prove that respondent voluntarily transferred her share as a gift---No independent witnesses or documentary proof of the alleged transfer were produced---Revenue record alone is insufficient to prove a valid transfer of ownership---Reliance placed on Peer Baksh v. Mst. Khanzadi (2016 SCMR 1417) and Muhammad Bakhsh v. Ellahi Bukhsh (2003 SCMR 286). (c) Islamic Law--- ---- Hiba (gift)---Essentials---A valid Hiba under Islamic law requires: (i) an offer by the donor, (ii) acceptance by the donee, and (iii) delivery of possession---Appellants failed to prove that the essential elements of a valid Hiba were fulfilled---No evidence of an express declaration of gift by the respondent was provided---Court held that mere possession by the donee does not establish a valid gift unless accompanied by independent evidence proving donor’s intention---Reliance placed on Abid Hussain v. Muhammad Yousaf (PLD 2022 SC 395). (d) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ---- Inheritance rights---Effect of delay in filing suit---Court held that limitation does not apply to a void transaction, and efflux of time does not extinguish a legal heir’s right in ancestral property---Inheritance rights are imprescriptible and cannot be defeated by lapse of time---Mutations based on fraudulent transfers do not create ownership rights unless supported by lawful transactions---Reliance placed on Muhammad Iqbal v. Mukhtar Ahmad (2008 SCMR 855) and Hakim Khan v. Nazeer Ahmad (1992 SCMR 1832). (e) Revenue Law--- ---- Mutation---Effect of revenue entries---Mutation is only a fiscal entry and does not create or extinguish ownership rights---A person relying on mutation as proof of title must establish the original transaction upon which it is based---Court held that since the appellants failed to provide any independent evidence supporting their claim of ownership, the disputed mutation was ineffective against the respondent’s inheritance rights---Reliance placed on Muhammad Akram v. Altaf Ahmad (PLD 2003 SC 688). ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed---Trial court’s judgment declaring the mutation illegal upheld---Respondent’s inheritance rights restored. ----Cited Cases: Peer Baksh v. Mst. Khanzadi (2016 SCMR 1417) Muhammad Bakhsh v. Ellahi Bukhsh (2003 SCMR 286) Abid Hussain v. Muhammad Yousaf (PLD 2022 SC 395) Muhammad Iqbal v. Mukhtar Ahmad (2008 SCMR 855) Hakim Khan v. Nazeer Ahmad (1992 SCMR 1832) Muhammad Akram v. Altaf Ahmad (PLD 2003 SC 688)

Summary: Quote: ''The spectre of being made liable to pay actual costs should be such as to make every litigant think twice befor putting forth a vexatious claim or defence3 before the Court. These costs in an appropriate case can be over and above the nominal costs which include costs of the time spent by the successful party, the transportation and lodging, if any, or any other incidental cost, besides the amount of the court fee, process fee and lawyer's fee paid in relation to the litigation.4 Imposition of costs in frivilous and vexatious cases meets the requirement of fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution, as it not only discourages frivilous claims or defences brought to the court house but also absence of such cases allows more court time for the adjudication of genuine claims. '' ---- [Scope of Section 476, Cr.P.C and importance of imposition of costs to curb frivolous and vexatious litigation] The facts of the case involved a dispute over a succession certificate for an amount of Rs.32,185 left by the deceased father of respondent No. 3. The petitioner's father had filed an application for cancellation of the succession certificate, claiming fraud and perjury by respondents No. 3 to 5. The trial court dismissed the application, and subsequent appeals were also unsuccessful. The High Court, in the impugned order, upheld the dismissal. Upon analyzing the case, the Supreme Court concluded that the petitioner's repeated applications and pursuit of litigation over a period of more than a decade amounted to an abuse of the court's process. The petitioner had no legitimate interest in challenging the succession certificate issued in favor of respondent No. 3. The court noted that the petitioner's actions appeared to be driven by private vengeance and a desire to settle a dispute over another property.The court emphasized the discretionary power granted by Section 476 of the CrPC to take cognizance of certain offenses committed in court proceedings. It stressed the need for judicious exercise of this discretion and warned against its abuse by litigants seeking personal vendettas. The court held that the trial court had rightly dismissed the applications, considering the absence of any legitimate interest and the mala fide nature of the claims. In addition, the court highlighted the detrimental impact of frivolous and vexatious litigation on the judicial system. To deter such practices, the court advocated for the imposition of costs in such cases. It emphasized that costs should go beyond nominal expenses and should include compensation for the successful party's time, transportation, lodging, court fees, process fees, and lawyer's fees. Imposing costs serves the interests of fair trial, discourages frivolous claims, encourages alternative dispute resolution, and reduces the burden on the courts. Based on its analysis, the Supreme Court dismissed the present petition as frivolous and vexatious, and imposed costs of Rs. 100,000 on the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to deposit the costs within three months, and failure to comply would result in recovery as a money decree with additional monthly increase and execution costs.

Summary: The court noted that filing documents without proper explanation does not align with the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, or common sense. According to Rule 1 of Order XVIII of the Rules, concise statements of facts and arguments are required to be mentioned when filing such documents. The court emphasized that documents filed through applications or concise statements should be adequately explained in the supporting affidavit or the application itself. The counsel for the private respondents informed the court that some of the respondents had passed away, and he would inform the petitioners' counsel to bring their legal heirs on record.The court ordered that a copy of the order be sent to the Registrar, who would notify the court officers receiving applications and concise statements to adhere to the Rules and the requirements outlined in paragraph 2 of the order. The court approved the order for reporting to ensure that litigants, advocates of the Supreme Court, and advocates-on-record are aware of the filing requirements.

Summary: BackgroundThis case before the Supreme Court of Pakistan involves Rustam and others (appellants) versus the legal representatives (LRs) of the deceased Jehangir. The appeal, originating from Civil Appeal No. 106-L of 2010, was decided on December 19, 2022, and addresses the inheritance dispute concerning Mohammad, who died issueless before 1947. Mohammad's property initially passed to his widow, Mst. Zohra, as a limited owner. Upon her remarriage, the property was supposed to be inherited by Mohammad?s siblings, including his sisters Mst. Nooran Bibi and Mst. Fateh Khatoon, but was instead transferred to others, leading to the legal contest.---IssuesThe central issues were:Whether Mst. Nooran Bibi and Mst. Fateh Khatoon were indeed sisters of Mohammad and thus rightful heirs to his property.Whether the mutation (No.675 dated September 29, 1992) that excluded them from the inheritance was valid.---Holding/Reasoning/OutcomeThe Supreme Court, after examining the evidence and previous court findings, upheld the decisions of the lower courts. It was established that Mst. Nooran Bibi and Mst. Fateh Khatoon were indeed the real sisters of Mohammad. The documents and testimonies presented by the defendants were deemed insufficient to prove otherwise. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal and validated the claims of Nooran Bibi and Fateh Khatoon to their brother?s inheritance, finding mutation No. 675 invalid.---Citations/PrecedentsBashir Ahmad through L.Rs. v. Muhammad Hussain and another (2010 SCMR 822): Pedigree tables alone are not sufficient proof of relationship without corroborative witness testimony or independent evidence.Mst. Hameeda Begum and others v. Mst. Irshad Begum and others (2007 SCMR 996): Emphasizes the need for documentary evidence to be properly introduced and subjected to cross-examination.Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and another v. Jaffar Khan and others (PLD 2010 SC 604): Details procedures for admitting documents into evidence.Province of the Punjab through Collector, Shikhupura and others v. Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah and others (2017 SCMR 172): Reiterates the necessity of fair opportunity for cross-examination of documentary evidence.

Summary: Background: The petitioners filed two suits for declaration based on a registered sale deed, which were initially dismissed. Upon appeal, a compromise decree was entered on 29.02.1994, based on statements by two of the respondents, without the involvement of their sister contending that the compromise was fraudulently entered to deprive her of her rightful inheritance, filed applications under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), which were initially dismissed. She then filed civil revisions, which led to the setting aside of the compromise decree by the Lahore High Court. This judgment was further challenged by the petitioners. -----Issues: 1- Jurisdiction of the Court: Whether the Lahore High Court had the jurisdiction to dismiss the original suits while allowing the revision petitions related to the Section 12(2) C.P.C. applications. 2- Right to a Fair Hearing: Whether the petitioners were denied the opportunity to present their defense, violating the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard). 3- Legal Consequence of Accepting Applications under Section 12(2) C.P.C.: Should the case be restored for trial on the merits instead of dismissing the suit outright? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the original suits after setting aside the compromise decree. Once the compromise was nullified under Section 12(2) C.P.C., the appropriate action would have been to restore the appeals and decide the case on its merits, rather than dismissing the suits outright. The dismissal deprived the petitioners of the opportunity to defend themselves and seek a decision on the merits of the appeals. The Court recognized that the petitioners were not given a fair hearing, as they were not present or represented when the decision was made, and the principle of audi alteram partem was violated. This warranted a reconsideration of the case. In line with the precedent established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Haji Farman Ullah v. Latif-ur-Rehman (2015 SCMR 1708), the Court ruled that upon setting aside the compromise decree, the proper course of action was to restore the appeals and include Mst. Mumtaz Mai as a necessary party. The appeals should be decided on their merits, not dismissed summarily. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Mumtaz Mai v. Sajjad Hussain (PLJ 2015 Lahore 581) Haji Farman Ullah v. Latif-ur-Rehman (2015 SCMR 1708)