Fraud and forgery

2025 MLD 804 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12, 42 & 54Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.71 & 79Suit for specific performance, declaration, recovery of damages and permanent injunctionRegistered agreement to sellFraud and forgeryBurden of proof, shifting ofProof of execution of registered documentRequirement of specific denial by executor Representation of respondents through special attorneysNon-appearance of respondents before the Trial Court to testifyAdverse inferenceSubstitution of evidence of special attorney in place of principalScopeNon-filing of application for verification of signatures by the respondents on the agreement to sellFailure of respondents to discharge evidentiary burdenMisapplication of law by the appellate courtJudgments at variance

Suit was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the petitioner, whereas, the appeal preferred by the respondents was accepted

Validity

Written statements were filed by the special attorneys appointed by respondents and they chose not to appear before the Trial Court to represent themselves or adduce evidence in relation to the petitioner's claim

Respondents also chose not to testify before the Trial Court and it was only their special attorney, who testified as DW-1

Where a registered document is the product of fraud and forgery, it is for such party to first establish through evidence that fraud or forgery were affected by the claimant by producing evidence before the court after which the burden would shift back on the claimant to prove the execution of such registered document

Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 (Order), provides that a registered document need not be proved by production of two attesting witnesses, "unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied."

Special attorney acknowledged that he had testified in his capacity as special attorney and did not claim to either be a witness to the transactions-in-question or have any personal knowledge of the same

Only respondent could personally testify by entering the witness box and disputing the fact that he had executed the registered agreement, who neither entered into the witness box nor presented himself to be cross-examined by the petitioner

Respondents filed no application to have the signatures of respondent verified on the agreement and/or the payment receipts to determine whether they were indeed the signatures of respondent or not

The only evidence denying the execution and content of the agreement was the testimony of DW-1, special attorney for respondents, who was not privy to the facts and presented hearsay evidence which was not admissible in terms of Art.71 of the Order, thus, Trial Court correctly held that respondents had failed to discharge the evidential burden of proving that the agreement was never executed and the agreement and its registration was a product of fraud and forgery, thus, onus of proving the agreement never shifted back to the petitioner

Appellate Court misapplied the law in terms of Art.79 of the Order and also did not take into account the finding of the Trial Court in terms of Art. 71 of the Order, where it had disregarded the testimony of the special attorney being hearsay evidence of a special attorney not privy to the facts in relation to which he sought to testify

Civil revision was allowed, in circumstances and judgment and decree of Trial Court was reaffirmed and upheld.

2021 YLR 677 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 8 & 42Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115Suit for possession of immovable property and declarationFraud and forgeryBona fide purchasers from attorneyImposing of special costs

Plaintiffs/respondents claimed to be owners of suit property and sought recovery of possession, on the ground that transfer of title was on the basis of forged power of attorney

Trial Court dismissed the suit but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same in favour of plaintiffs/respondents

Plea raised by defendants/petitioners was that they were bona fide purchasers for value from power of attorney holder

Validity

Plaintiffs/respondents who were alleged executants of power of attorney were residents of city "F" whereas subject land was located in city "C", therefore, general power of attorney could normally be executed or registered in either of the two places but its creation at city "K", if found to be correct, was sufficient to doubt its veracity

Questioned document was an engineered by practicing forgery and fraud

Defendants/petitioners were bona fide purchasers for value from holder of forged and factious attorney deed who had not authority to transfer suit area in favour of defendants/petitioners, who merely on the basis of sale deed executed by such agent in his favour had not become rightful owners

Neither fraudulent alienation could be protected nor perpetuated and was rightly collapsed by Lower Appellate Court

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court as predecessor-in-interest of defendants/petitioners were in league with a forger usurped property of innocent persons

High Court advised plaintiffs/respondents to come forward to initiate criminal proceedings against delinquents, besides filing of suit for recovery of damages

High Court imposed heavy cost upon defendants/ petitioners

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2017 YLR 1348 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 2Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionEvacuee propertyCancellation of allotmentFraud and forgeryAllotment of urban land against rural units

Petitioners were aggrieved of order passed by Notified Officer, whereby allotment order was recalled on the ground of fraud

Validity

Allotment order was obtained on the basis of forged document got prepared by unauthorized general power of attorney in favour of original allottees within urban limits against agriculture claim in year 1996, after repeal of Evacuee Laws

Allotted land was already declared as building site in year, 1973, and jurisdiction of Notified Officer was explicitly barred to deal with the affairs of such land/property in any manner whatsoever

Any order passed in violation of notification in question was to be treated as void and coram non judice, unjustifiable as urban properties could not be allotted against rural agricultural unit

Notified Officer had jurisdiction to re-open entire case to investigate element of fraud and decide the same as per law

Original transaction was unlawful, illegal and void ab initio

Every subsequent transaction based upon the same was bound to sink along with fate of the original

No illegality, perversity and irregularity in the order passed by Board of Revenue was found

High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, declined to interfere in the order passed by Notified Officer

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 CLC 1772 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 34Stay of proceedingsFraud and forgery

Mere allegation of fraud/forgery in a civil suit against defendant cannot by itself be a ground for refusing a stay the proceedings in suit.

2011 CLD 1029 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.7, 9 & 162Register, rectification ofFraud and forgeryPetitioner owned shares of company in question and alleged that his name was deleted from register fraudulentlyValidity

Commission of fraud was apparent as no documentary evidence regarding resignation of petitioner from CEO/ Directorship of the company and transfer of shares had been produced by respondents before High Court or before Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan

At belated stage, the respondents tried to fill lacuna by producing photocopies of documents regarding resignation by filing a prayerless application and had enclosed photocopies of alleged resignation and resolution both dated 30-8-2003, but the same were never filed along with objections to petition filed by respondents on 27-10-2009

Security and Exchange Commission also did not produce such documents before High Court

Petitioner categorically stated in his counter affidavit that photocopies of such documents were forged

Respondents failed to bring any document whereby petitioner had transferred his shares in the name of one of the respondents

No personal affidavit of transferee respondent in that respect was filed in High Court that he had paid the amount to petitioner or his son

Petition was allowed in circumstances.