Missing person

2025 PLD 387 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 123 & 124Suit for declaration and injunctionMissing personProofHearsay evidenceOwner of suit land was issueless who had two brothers and one sisterThrough sale mutation the owner transferred a portion of his land in favour of defendant/brother

Thereafter the owner had gone missing and remaining suit land was transferred through mutation of inheritance in favour of defendant/brother and defendant/ sister considering him (the owner) dead

Plaintiffs were successors-in-interest of third brother who did not get any share from suit land

Suit filed by plaintiffs was decreed and mutations in question were declared invalid

Validity

Statement of plaintiff could not be relied upon as he was a minor at the time of his father's death, and he had not stated who told him that his father was unaware of the sale

Such statement of plaintiff was treated as mere hearsay

Where original owner did not opt to contest sale mutation while alive, his death could not confer any rights or standing upon his descendants to challenge such sale

Plaintiffs lacked standing, and their claim was barred by time limitations imposed by law

If evidence shows a person was alive within thirty years prior to the date when question of his status arises, there is a presumption that he is still alive

Burden of proof then falls upon the party asserting his death

Such presumption is susceptible to rebuttal under Article 124 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

If it can be demonstrated that such a person has not been heard of for a period of seven years by those who would naturally have maintained contact with him, the burden of proof then shifts to those claiming the person is still alive

Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs predeceased his brother, thus, he had no claim to any inheritance from him

Plaintiffs lacked legal standing necessary to challenge validity of mutation of inheritance as they could not substantiate their claim to any share of inheritance

Supreme Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below as none of the Courts below properly appreciated such aspect of the matter, and had misdirected themselves, holding that inheritance mutation was void

Supreme Court declared that both sale mutation and inheritance mutation were valid

Appeal was allowed.

2022 PLD 308 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art.199Habeas corpusPower under Art.199 of the ConstitutionScopeMissing personScope

Habeas corpus writ is to be issued only when the person concerning whose liberty, the petition has been filed, is illegally detained by respondents in the petition

On the basis of a habeas corpus petition the power under Art. 199 of the Constitution is not to be exercised for tracing a missing person engaging an investigation agency empowered to investigate a case under the Code of Criminal Procedure

Investigation, if is in progress, is to be overseen by the criminal court.

2018 CLC 1858 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionFundamental Rights, violation ofMissing personsOnus to proveResponsibility of State

Petitioner invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court against missing of his husband who was victim of 'enforced disappearance' by State machinery

Petitioner sought recovery of her husband and also sought recovery of compensation from the State functionaries

Validity

Enforced disappearance is one of the most cruel and inhuman acts and was categorized as a crime against humanity

Complaint which alleged or disclosed characteristics in nature of enforced disappearance would be treated by authorities as heinous act and thus had dealt with accordingly

Onus was on public functionaries to dispel any impression regarding involvement of State or its instrumentalities in alleged abduction

Such onus was to be discharged by establishing prompt, responsive and effective investigations

High Court directed the authorities to pay amount demanded by petitioner lady or such amount as could be determined pursuant to verification and that arrears would be calculated and paid to the petitioner with effect from date when her husband had gone missing

High Court further directed that monthly payment would be made to petitioner till state through its functionaries had traced whereabouts or fate of detenue

High Court also directed that concerned officials would pay costs through cross-cheques drawn in name of petitioner within 10 days of announcement of judgment

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2016 MLD 65 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.154Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionMissing personLodging of FIR

Father of missing boy might approach the concerned Station House Officer who should record statement and take necessary action for recovery of missing boy and also lodge the FIR.

2011 CLD 1594 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 124Missing personPresumption of deathRelevant personsPrinciple

Relevant persons about presumption of death of a person are those who could naturally hear about the person as if he had been alive

Wife as well as sons and daughters are the first persons who can claim refuge under Art. 124 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

2011 CLD 1594 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 117, 120 & 124Missing personPresumptionDate of deathOnus to provePerson who has not been heard for seven years is presumed to be dead

If date of his death is claimed that has to be proved by the person who is claiming.

2011 CLC 1959 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 124Missing personPresumption of deathRelevant personsPrinciple

Relevant persons about presumption of death of a person are those who could naturally hear about the person as if he had been alive

Wife as well as sons and daughters are the first persons who can claim refuge under Art.124 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.