Declaration of title

Petitioner / plaintiff was aggrieved of dismissal of his suit by respondent / Anti-Encroachment Tribunal against recovery of possession of suit property as encroachment

Validity

Petitioner / plaintiff did not prove any legal title or character in the property

Plaintiff under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 must establish a legal character or right to property to maintain a declaratory suit

Petitioner / plaintiff lacked registered instrument or sanctioned mutation and had no such legal character

Bare declaration, under proviso to S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 was barred when further relief could be sought

Petitioner / plaintiff could have sought specific performance against his vendors or approached the competent authority for regularization but instead sought a negative declaration against statutory authorities, which was not maintainable

Fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings

Reliance on fabricated and forged allotment orders was itself sufficient to non-suit the petitioner / plaintiff

Courts could not lend their discretionary jurisdiction to a party which had based its case on forged documents

High Court declined to interfere in the order of Anti Encroachment Tribunal, which had carefully examined the material, applied correct principles of law, and dismissed the suit, as there was no illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence in the judgment

Petitioner / plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership without any valid instrument, mutation or sanction from the Board and had relied on inadmissible photocopies and unregistered agreements lacking witnesses

Petitioner / plaintiff failed to rebut the record of authorities marking his documents as fake

Petitioner / plaintiff leveled scandalous allegations of bribery without proof and obstructed lawful anti-encroachment operations

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Federal Government terming the suit property as evacuee property transferred it in favour of Federal Government and then to a person respectively, who later on transferred it in favour of predecessor of respondents

Mortgage came to knowledge of the petitioners, when predecessor of the respondents instituted a suit against petitioners alleging to be the owners of the suit property, which prompted the petitioners to file a declaratory suit for redemption of the suit property

Trial Court dismissed the suit treating it to be barred by time under Art. 148 of Limitation Act, 1908

Appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree of Trial Court on the ground that it was not clear that non-Muslim lady had left the country after 1947, therefore, petitioners were required to have asked for redemption of the property within a period of sixty years

Validity

Such determination of the Appellate Court was completely against the record and did not have any relevance to the present controversy for the reason that if such argument of the Appellate Court was accepted then there was no occasion for the Federal Government to have declared the suit property as evacuee and transferred it in the year, 1990, therefore, Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal on wrong premises

Powers under S.25(2)(l) of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, were delegated to the Deputy Rehabilitation and Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner to issue notice to local mortgagors to redeem the property within one month failing which the property would be liable to be auctioned under S.25(2)(s) of the Act, but the petitioners were not given any notice, as such, from the acknowledgment of the right of redemption, a fresh period of limitation would be computed for the exercise of such right in terms of S.19 of the Limitation Act, 1908

Thus, if the period of limitation was counted from the year, 1947, still the suit of the petitioners was not barred by time

After the acknowledgement of the rights of the petitioners vide letter Memo dated 08.12.1959, a fresh period of limitation would be computed for exercise of such rights in terms of S.19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and as such, from the year, 1959 too, the suit of the petitioners was not barred by time

Both the Courts below had failed to consider the question of limitation in its true perspective, as suit filed by petitioners for redemption was well within time in terms of Art.148 of the Limitation Act, 1908, therefore, Civil revision was allowed and judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set-aside and the suit of the petitioners was decreed as prayed for accordingly.

Unregistered document neither creates any title nor right or interest in suit property as envisaged in S. 49 of Specific Relief Act, 1877

Suit for declaration under S. 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 on the basis of such document is neither permissible nor maintainable.

Petitioners claimed that suit land was decided in their favour but Assistant Political Agent during its implementation/execution could not determine as to who was the owner of property in question

Validity

Court executing a decree could not go beyond decree and was required to execute decree as it was

Court had no jurisdiction under the provision of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to broaden its scope

Court under S.47, C.P.C. was empowered to deal with events subsequent to issuance of decree and had to decide all questions arising out between the parties to the suit in which decree was passed when such question related to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree

Executing Court was not empowered to bring about changes in the rights and obligations of parties that had already been determined by decree

Decree was to be executed in spirit of its terms and conditions and not in derogation thereof

High Court set aside observations/findings of Executing Court/Assistant Political Agent with regard to ownership of land

Revision was allowed accordingly.

When once forest was declared protected and notification to such effect was issued and published in official gazette, then power to declare any protected forest as no longer protected rested with Government only

Neither the Board nor any other authority could declare protected forest no longer protected

Board had its relevance only when Government intended to declare any land or wasteland as a reserved or protected forest and had issued any notification to such effect under S.5(1) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002 in case of reserved forest and under S.29 read with S.5(1) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002, in case of protected forest

With determination of all disputes, issuance and publication of final notification under S.20 read with S.24 or S.29 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002, forum of Board would become functus officio and had no more remainedavailable

Same was the case with appellate forum provided under S.17 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002, therefore, no direction could be issued to Government for constitution of Board

Petitioners had recourse to appropriate forum available under law

Orders of rejection of plaint or its return made in pursuance to a judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court in an earlier case was per incuriam and did not constitute bar in the way of institution of fresh suits

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Mere adverse entries in revenue record do not create or extinguish title of property.

Subsequent purchaser / title-holder has to swim and sink with original allottee and is debarred to claim better rights than the person from whom he derived title.

'Maintainability of lis' is legal question related to legal character of person under the provisions of S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, which requires any person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property may institute suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such character or right and Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration he is so entitled

Law authorizes a person to seek enforcement of his right to any property by instituting a suit against a person denying his right or title

'Entitlement to relief' is question of facts to be proved through evidence.

Object of S. 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, is to perpetuate and strengthen testimony regarding title of plaintiff and to secure possession of property to wrong party

Person can seek aid of court to dispel cloud in the case which is cast upon his title or legal character

No justification existed for assuming that suit for declaration as to status claimed by plaintiff cannot be maintained

Any man's legal character is generally taken as the same thing as a man's status

Words "right to as to any property" are to be understood in a wider sense than "right to property" and words "interested to deny" denotes that defendant is interested in denying right of plaintiff or his legal character

Denial of right constitute a cause of action to maintain an action under S. 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877

Relief of declaration is a discretionary relief and can be granted in the case where substantial injury is established and in absence of denial of right no relief of declaration can be granted

Provision of S. 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, is not exhaustive of circumstances in which declaration is to be given

Declaration can be given even in the circumstances not covered by S. 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, in which case general provision of law gives declaration sought

Court in substance has to see whether plaintiff, in facts and circumstances of the case should or should not grant declaration.

If genuineness of a transaction entered on behalf of a pardanashin lady was disputed, heavy onus would lie on the person who asserted right through it, to prove the good faith and genuineness

Pardanashin lady signed the document and later on came to know that she had been deceived and defrauded

Pardanashin lady or for that matter even a moderately educated lady was unable to understand the technicalities of transactions and that too, in a situation where the perpetrators of fraud were their real brothers

Gullible as the ordinary women were, it was quite understandable that they fall easy prey to such machinations especially when they were executed with a degree of finesse by their otherwise benign looking real brothers

Burden to prove the gift fell squarely on the shoulders of the beneficiaries

Petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proof, High Court dismissed the petition.

Registered sale-deed was attested on 20-2-1968, possession of suit-land was delivered to vendees at the same time and alienation was also incorporated in revenue record through mutation attested on 27-8-1968

Vendees also entered into exchange of suit-land with defendants vide mutation dated 5-2-1969, including exchange of possession

Knowledge of plaintiff with regard to transaction in question from the very outset could not be doubted

In terms of Art. 120 of Limitation Act, 1908, plaintiff could have challenged the transaction with a stipulated period of six years from the date of registration of sale in question which was 20-2-1968, whereas suit was lodged by him on 21-2-1975, after about seven years of accrual of cause of action

Suit filed by plaintiff was barred by limitation and findings of Lower Appellate Court in such regard were salutary leaving no scope for interference

High Court did not find any legal or factual infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

When a propositus dies, all his legal heirs automatically become co-sharer in the property left by him.

Local Commission was appointed by Trial Court, who submitted his report but the same was set aside as it did not resolve the dispute regarding demarcation of land

Validity

Courts below did not properly decide the relevant issue touching real contention between the parties

Supreme Court set aside the findings of three courts below and remanded the matter to Trial Court for a fresh decision on all issues after getting disputed portion of land demarcated and directed that District Coordination Officer would demarcate the land in collaboration with survey department

Appeal was allowed.

Plaintiffs assailed transfer of suit land in favour of defendant on the plea of fraud as allegedly the attorney who made the transaction was not appointed by them

Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in favour of plaintiffs was maintained by Lower Appellate Court and High Court

Validity

Concurrent findings of facts were recorded by all three courts below to the effect that power of attorney was neither produced in original nor it had been proved in accordance with law, though the defendant was a beneficiary and he was required to do so

On account of some findings about power of attorney in another litigation, the rule of res judicata was not attracted, particularly when such judgments and decrees had not been shown to have been adduced in evidence by defendant before Trial Court

Supreme Court declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the courts below

Appeal was dismissed.

Plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of 1/3rd land belonging to their predecessor-in-interest and also claimed that the sale deeds and mutations regarding land in question were result of fraud

Defendants admitted plaintiffs as legal heirs of deceased but asserted that they were not in possession of any piece of land

Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit and appeal respectively

Validity

Plaintiffs were the legal heirs of deceased owner of land in question, while one of the defendants was the daughter of deceased owner and other defendant was brother-in-law of the deceased, who claimed himself to be the general attorney of the deceased

Deceased was owner of immovable properties in three districts of Punjab, who was incapacitated person, he was a man of advance age, patient of paralysis, unable to walk and two years before his death he was suffering from "Marz-ul-Mout" who never executed any sale-deed nor appointed his brother-in-law as his attorney and all alleged sales and power of attorney in favour of defendant were outcome of fraud

After the admission by defendants about status of plaintiffs, being legal heirs of deceased owner, the plaintiffs had become owners of their respective shares and they were deemed to be the co-shares in the property

Suit for declaration was maintainable, as such findings of two courts below to such extent were against law

Plaintiffs had successfully proved their case and daughter of deceased was entitled to her respective share according to law even if sale deed in her favour was declared illegal

Judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were set aside and suit was decreed in favour of plaintiffs

All legal heirs of deceased would become owners of the estate according to Islamic law of inheritance

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Suit for specific performance filed by defendant was dismissed but plaintiff was not put in possession of suit property through any specific order in that suit nor plaintiff had filed any suit for possession

Plaintiff preferred to file criminal complaint within the meaning of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and as an interim measure he was given possession of the suit property

Validity

Interim measure was subjected to final outcome of criminal complaint and criminal court had directed plaintiff to handover possession of suit property to defendant

Plaintiff was not in lawful possession of suit property and/or defendants were not attempting to dispossess the plaintiff from suit property without due process of law, when the suit was filed by plaintiff

By concealment of fact, plaintiff had obtained ad interim order

Plaintiff having not come with clean hands to High Court, and did not have a prima facie case or balance of convenience in his favour

High Court declined to grant interim injunction

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

During execution of decree passed in favour of respondents by Civil Courts, revenue authorities while relying upon S.2-A of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, declined to attest mutation in their favour

Validity

Decree of Trial Court stood executed on 5-1-1982, after pronouncement of judgment of Supreme Court on 14-11-1981

Any correction in allotted shares by acceptance of review petition did not re-open past and closed transaction on the ground of non-delivery of actual physical possession as Dakhal Malkana (possession as owner) had been given to respondents on 14-7-1981

On passing of decree as modified by Lower Appellate Court, respondents became co-sharers in suit property thus only joint possession could be delivered as the property was not susceptible of physical possession

Decree in favour of respondents stood executed on 1-8-1983 through sanction of mutation and delivery of possession by way of "Dakhl Malkana" before enforcement of S.2-A of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962

Delivery of actual physical possession was not necessary to make decree in favour of respondent as past and closed transaction in terms of proviso to S.2-A of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, in favour of respondents

Leave to appeal was refused.

Limitation runs from the date of denial to the right of plaintiff by defendant.

Plaintiff claimed to be co-owner of suit property to the extent of one half share, on the basis of a registered sale-deed dated 16-6-1920, in favour of his predecessor-in-­interest, while defendants relying on mutation entry in revenue record denied the claim of plaintiff

Validity

Presumption attached to mutation entry in favour of predecessor-in-interest of defendants stood rebutted through registered sale-deed dated 16-6-1920, in view whereof defendants or their predecessors could not be held as exclusive owners of disputed property

Plaintiff and defendants were half owners of disputed property in equal shares

Revenue record reflected that entry in the name of predecessor-in-interest of defendants was a result of fraud which had vitiated the most solemn proceedings

Once a mutation was challenged, the party that relied on such mutation was bound to revert to the original transaction, which resulted into the entry or attestation of mutation in question

Defendant failed to bring any document on record to prove the transaction in which entry in question was made in favour of their predecessor-in-­interest as exclusive owner with regard to disputed property and on the contrary, the only existing document on record i.e. registered sale-deed dated 16-6-1920, proved that plaintiff was owner of one half of the property, who was illegally deprived of the property as shareholder in revenue record

As mutation entry in revenue record in the name of predecessor-in-­interest of defendants was a result of fraud and contrary to registered sale-deed, therefore, the same was void ab intio, hence no limitation could run with regard to such fraudulent entry

Plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed in the suit property with regard to half of the disputed property as co-sharer on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 16-6-1920

Plaintiff was further entitled to inherit share of his mother and wife in the other half of disputed property, by way of correction of entries, partition and possession

Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was set aside and the suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

When plaintiffs and defendants are co-owners in the legacy of their predecessor-in-interest, no limitation would run in such cases.

Defendants contended that suit properties were gifted in their favour and as the gifts were not assailed therefore, plaintiffs did not have any cause of action

Validity

Plaintiffs could not be non-suited merely because gifts had not been challenged

To ascertain the plaint, not only form but frame and substance of the plaint was to be taken into consideration and adhered to.

Plaintiff claimed ownership of truck in question and after passing decree in his favour he took over the possession of the truck

High Court remanded the matter to Trial Court making good the deficiencies in court-fees-Trial Court in post remand proceedings, directed the defendant to hand over the possession of truck to defendant

Validity

Defendant could only restitute a benefit in the light of S.144, C. P. C., where any such benefit had been taken from his possession in result of a decree, for which he was entitled

If any benefit, for which defendant was not legally entitled to keep it in possession, being trespasser or illegal occupier, he could not agitate to get any benefit in view of S.144, C.P.C.

Defendant was prima facie a trespasser or grabber, who took the law in his hands, therefore, he was not entitled to restitution against person, who took the property in possession through a lawful direction

Judgments passed by Lower Appellate Court as well as of Trial Court were set aside being illegal.

Plaintiffs assailed partition of suit properties on the ground that when partition deed was executed, then one of the plaintiffs was minor

At one stage plaintiffs admitted grant of property to predecessor - in - interest of defendants as matter of respect and at second juncture, plaintiffs denied the same right to them which had given to their predecessor-in-interest on the strength of the same partition deed

Both the Courts below had concurrently dismissed the suit and appeal filed by plaintiffs

Validity

Partition deed had either to be accepted in total or to be denied completely and plaintiffs could not be allowed to pick and choose, therefore, findings of two Courts below were in accordance with material available on record

If one of the plaintiffs was a minor at the time of execution of partition deed, under the law he was required to file a suit for declaration within three years of attaining the age of majority as provided under the law but he filed the suit beyond three years and objection regarding his age was raised for the first time before High Court, which could not be raised

Findings of two Courts below were in accordance with law and concurrent findings of facts were against plaintiffs which could not be interfered with unless it was established that the same had been based on misreading or non-reading of material evidence available on the record or the Courts below had failed to exercise the jurisdiction provided under law

Plaintiffs failed to make out a case within the framework of S.115, C.P.C. High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of Courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Right / title of vendee is dependent upon the strength or weakness of title of seller, who cannot confer better title than he himself holds

Purchaser in order to invoke provisions of section 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, must prove his bona fide purchase through convincing evidence that his transferor was ostensible owner.

Concurrent findings of fact by two Courts 'below-Plaintiffs claimed to be owners of suit land and sought rectification of revenue record

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court decided the matter in favour of plaintiffs

Plea raised by defendants was that suit filed by plaintiffs was barred by limitation

Validity

Plaintiffs were proved to be owners to the extent of 4/11 shares, therefore, they were co-owners in suit Kimura numbers with defendants and being so the :question of limitation was not attracted

Factum of any inaction or omission on the part of defendants was termed by the Courts below to be the result of their being minors at that time

Both the Courts below, after scanning and subjective examination of entire material available on the record had rightly admitted claim of plaintiffs by passing decree in their favour and did not commit any irregularity or illegality in recording the judgments

Judgments of lower courts were not vulnerable to any attack and exception

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

During the pendency of suit, matter was referred to a third person on the proposal of the counsel for the parties and on the statement of referee the suit was dismissed

Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Plea raised by plaintiffs was that referee had no personal knowledge of the facts and they did not want to decide the matter on the statement of the referee

Validity

When a party to dispute referred the matter to a third person for opinion in the matter, the statement of that third person was binding on the parties and was to be considered as a statement of the parties

Referee in question had no personal knowledge about the matter and he got his statement recorded on the basis of hearsay evidence, therefore, he could not be termed as referee

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and matter was remanded to Trial Court for deciding the same on merits after recording of evidence of the parties

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Land in question was owned by local government, and plaintiffs had constructed shops over it with permission of the authorities

Defendants were in possession of suit property as tenants of plaintiff, who stopped payment of rent to plaintiffs and also denied their title

Suit filed by plaintiffs was decreed in their favour by Trial Court and appeal filed by only defendants was allowed and suit was dismissed

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction restored the judgment and decree, passed by Trial Court

Plea raised by defendants was that in presence of actual owner of property, provision of Art.115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was not applicable

Validity

Statutory bar was created against tenant to challenge title of landlord

Decision arrived at by Trial Court in respect of title of suit property was decided against authorities who did not challenge judgment and decree of Trial Court, as such they had accepted the same

It was not alleged that local government ever threatened eviction of defendants

Ordinarily tenant was not entitled to set up title of third person

There was nothing on record to show that bar created under Art.115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, had been removed as such defendants could not challenge title of plaintiffs

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed.

Supreme Court normally could not go behind finding of fact by High Court, unless it was shown that the findings on the face of it amounted to perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice or if there had been misapplication of principle relating to appreciation of evidence, or, finally, if the finding could be demonstrated to be physically impossible

Such being the practice and rule of Supreme Court in civil appeals, burden lay heavily on appellant to show that findings recorded by High Court were not sustainable on record and should be interfered with by Supreme Court

Defendant failed to bring the case within the parameters prescribed by Supreme Court in various pronouncements

Supreme Court declined to interfere in concurrent conclusions arrived at by the courts below, Trial Court as well as High Court, while exercising power under Art.185 of the Constitution

Appeal was dismissed.

Trial Court after recording of evidence decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs, which judgment and decree was also maintained by Lower Appellate Court as well as by Chief Court

Validity

Contention of defendants amounted to request for re-appraisal of evidence to reach different conclusions on the questions of facts different than those arrived at by three courts below

Supreme Appellate Court did not consider it an appropriate case for reappraisal of evidence

No error on question of law was pointed out by defendants for determination and interference with the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below

Leave to appeal was refused.

Parties admitted existence of sale agreement and general power of attorney but plaintiff denied execution of the same and alleged them to be bogus and forged documents

Trial Court dismissed the suit but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same

Validity

By merely filing written statement defendant claimed the documents in question to be valid and legal and further claimed to have paid sale consideration in respect of subject property to plaintiff at the time of execution of alleged sale agreement and further claimed to have taken over the possession of such property

Such claim of defendant could not stand test of evidence as neither defendant produced himself as witness to substantiate such claim or chose to cross-examine the plaintiff in order to refute allegations and to dislodge assertions of plaintiff

High Court did not find any error in the judgment of Lower Appellate Court whereby claim of defendant was denied

Finding of Lower Appellate Court regarding assertions/claim of plaintiff was based on sound legal principle and in absence of any finding on the validity of alleged forged documents by both the Courts below without even examining the same or seeking production of such documents during the course of proceeding and exhibiting such document as per law, whereafter the same could have stood the test of evidence, any finding deciding the fate of such documents could not be considered as valid and in accordance with law

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh after framing of issue relating validity or otherwise of alleged sale agreement and general power of attorney

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Paragraph marking-Object-Plaintiffs were first wife and daughters from deceased owner of suit land who assailed consent decree passed in favour of defendants who were second wife and children of deceased owner

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court had concurrently decided suit and appeal in favour of plaintiffs but High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, dismissed the suit being barred by limitation

Validity

Independent source of income of minors (defendant) was not proved and borrowing of Rs.80,000 by predecessor-­in-interest from minors (defendants) and adjustment thereof as sale consideration had not been physically proved

No evidence was available to the effect that father transferred possession through attornment

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court were justified in holding that factum of sale was not proved, as the same was the most important question of fact

High Court had no justification to set aside such question of fact while exercising revisional jurisdiction

Limitation started from point of time when fraud had become known to the party wronged

Plaintiffs, in one of the paragraphs of plaint, had referred to accrual of cause of action from the date of decree as well as death of their predecessor-in-interest

Factum of knowledge was though not mentioned in such paragraph but the same was clearly and specifically mentioned in another paragraph of the plaint

Effect of pleadings was to be taken from general and overall reading thereof and it was-not at all fatal if some assertion was omitted to be taken in relevant paragraph

Ear-marking of specific paragraphs in law of pleadings and conveyancing was only for the purpose that some material aspects would not be omitted to be mentioned

Decree assailed in suit being a consent decree could never have come to the knowledge of plaintiffs who had inheritance mutation in their favour, which mutation was challenged by defendants on revenue side

Plaintiffs obtained knowledge when they were to appear before Revenue authorities, therefore, suit filed by plaintiffs was well within time

High Court was not justified in setting aside concurrent findings of two courts below on pure question of fact

Judgment and decree passed by High Court was set aside and those of two Courts below were restored

Appeal was allowed.

Expression "on active service" in relation to military services would mean a person engaged in any military operation as defined in S.8(1) of Pakistan Army Act, 1952

Person, if member of military service and subject to Pakistan Army Act, 1952, would be deemed on active service

Civilian employee in a Defence Organization, if attached with an active force engaged in any military operation, would be deemed to be on active service

Active service in terms of Notification under S.7 of Pakistan Army Act, 1952 was not distinct and different to active service mentioned in S.8(1) thereof

Active service under S.8(1) of Pakistan Army Act, 1952 would mean as applying to all such persons, who were subject to Pakistan Army Act, 1952 and attached to or formed part of a force engaged in military operation

Persons not otherwise subject to military laws and not directly falling within ambit of Pakistan Army Act, 1952 would be deemed to be on active service and would become subject to Pakistan Army Act, 1952, if they were employed by or in service or were followers of or accompanying any portion of regular army on active service in camp or on the march or at any frontier post specified by Federal Government in Notification under S.7 thereof

Principles.

Restraint of victim becomes "abduction" when it is done with intent to prevent liberation of victim.

Word "hostage-taking" used in S.7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, means an innocent person held captive by one who threatens to kill or harm him if his demands are not met

Hostage taking is a federal crime

Term, when used with reference to person and in context in which it is used in kidnapping statute, implies unlawful taking, restraining or confining of person with intent that person or victim be held as security for performance or forbearance of some act by third person.

Word "applicant" as appearing in R.13-A of Natural Gas Rules, 1960, connotes "applicant" who carries with him proper title and proper title in such respect can only be when person is occupying premises in proper and legal way.

Expression "case decided" is necessarily confined to final order rather it may, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case relate to alp' interlocutory order passed at any stage of the proceedings including an interim order requiring application of mind.

Defendants raised the pleas that. they were bona fide purchasers for consideration under S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and issues were net properly framed

Validity

Defendants were required to be careful in ascertaining the correct title of their vendor but they did not examine the title nor consulted the record vis-a-vis, the .general power of attorney

Defendants failed to inquire from the plaintiff, in this behalf before entering into sale

Suit land had been sold to the last owner for a consideration of Rs. 2, 20, 000 and within six months was sold to defendants , for a total sum of Rs. 8, 25,000

Such sale to 'defendants rendered proof that, they were not bona .fide purchasers for consideration and were fully ativare of the defective title of seller

Defendants could not claim better title than that possessed by their vendor

Defendants failed to point out as to what issues were required to be framed arising out of the controversy

Even if some issues ,were not correctly framed or happily worded, when evidence -had come ort record on the controversy no prejudice was caused to defendants

Defendants failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence

Concurrent findings of fact by the courts below, did not call for interference

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

No detail of sale i.e. time, date or place or names of witnesses in whose presence it was effected was mentioned by plaintiffs

Even witnesses of plaintiffs had riot detailed the necessary ingredients of sale

Trial Court and Appellate Court dismissed the suit and appeal respectively

Validity

In absence of any documentary evidence a sale through oral means could only be established through unimpeachable and definite exactitude of all minor details which were missing

Plaintiffs had failed to establish their case

High Court declined to interfere with concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two courts below

Revision- was dismissed its circumstances.

Nothing was available on record from which it could be inferred that plaintiffs were not the daughters of pre-deceased daughter of deceased owner

Both the Courts below had concurrently decided against defendants

High Court did not find any fallacy in the judgments of Courts below

Third party claimed to be bona .fide purchaser but defendants could not alienate the share of plaintiffs

Third party had purchased only the share of defendants and no title regarding the share of plaintiffs passed to third party

Plaintiffs and defendants being daughters and sons of pre-deceased children were entitled to receive the share which their mother and father would have received under S.4 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961

High Court declined to interfere with the judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below

Revision was dismissed.

Plaintiff relied upon a letter allegedly written by Authorities and a statement of accounts issued by bank in. respect of an account of the father of parties, to prove that the funds for purchase of land were actually paid by their father

Both the Courts below concurrently dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff

Validity

Statement of accounts was not certified in terms of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, as no certificate was appended with or upon the statement

Author of statement of accounts also not entered the witness box to prove the statement

Neither the record nor any employee of Bank concerned was produced in evidence

Letter relied upon by plaintiff did not bear signatures of any person and author of the letter also not entered witness box to prove the same

Record of authorities was never summoned to prove the issuance of letter

Such statement of accounts and letter were rightly not relied upon by two Courts below

Concurrent findings of fact that property in dispute vested in defendant was sufficiently supported by documentary evidence

Ingredients of Benami transaction were not proved on record

Neither there was any misreading or non-reading of evidence nor any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference by High Court in its revisional jurisdiction

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Plea of adverse possession (before it was declared violative of Islamic injunctions) was primarily meant to provide a defence against a suit.for possession filed by a legal owner

Title of legal owner was not extinguished on account of adverse . possession

Plaintiffs, in order to prove their title on the basis of adverse possession, were supposed firstly to identify the lawful owner of suit property and then to show that their possession , was openly hostile and adverse to such legal owner

Plaintiffs, in their suit, had neither identified the lawful owner nor claimed that they themselves were in actual physical possession of disputed land

Plaint expressly stipulated that land, being claimed by plaintiffs was open land

Any claim of exclusive possession of such land, particularly when the land was not walled off but was being utilized for a communal purpose, must be considered with a lot of skepticism

Such claim should not be accepted except where there was un­controvertible proof in its support

If there was no identifiable owner in whom title of suit property was vested, it must be held in the circumstances that the property vested in entire community and was available for communal use

Such conclusion found support from testimony of witnesses produced by both sides, who had confirmed that suit land was, in fact being used for a communal purpose viz. a bus stand

Both the courts below had not taken note of the circumstances of the case and had proceeded on erroneous premises and also on a 'misreading of evidence

Neither plaintiffs nor defendants had any title in or exclusive right to the suit land

Judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below, though concurrent, were not legally sustainable and were set aside

Resultantly suit filed by plaintiffs was dismissed

Revision was allowed accordingly.