Validity

2026 PLD 53 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

ValidityEssential ingredients

A transaction which is based on an oral gift has two parts, namely the fact of the oral gift which has to be independently established by proving through cogent and reliable evidence the three necessary ingredients of a valid gift i.e. (1) declaration of gift, (2) acceptance of the gift and (3) delivery of the possession of the subject of the gift; however, this is not enough

The second ingredient i.e. mutation on the basis of an oral gift has to be independently established by adopting the procedure provided in the Land Revenue Act and the Rules framed thereunder as well as the evidentiary aspects of the same in terms of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

2022 PLD 228 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Source of lawCommentary on Muslim Personal Law by Dinshaw Fardunji MullaValidity

Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla was not a Muslim scholar who can be accredited with religious expertise to interpret precepts of Islam

Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, of Zoroastrian faith by descent, was a legal scholar who authored treatises on various subjects of law, including contract law and Muslim Personal Law

Treatise of Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla on Muslim Personal Law is like any other legal commentary by a scholar of law as opposed to the commentary by a Muslim jurist with expertise or authority to interpret primary sources of Islamic Law

Dinshaw Mulla's commentary can therefore not be treated as a source of law itself but like any other treatise commenting on a subject of law can be used as a reference and a commentary.

2021 CLC 1788 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

WillValidityScopeWill, in favour of legal heirsPrinciple

Plaintiffs claimed to be owners of suit property on the basis of 'Will Deed' executed by their deceased father during his life time

Defendants were also legal heirs of deceased who were denied execution of any such deed

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently dismissed the suit and appeal filed by plaintiffs

Validity

Legal heirs had not consented rather contested the suit and alleged 'Will Deed' was not according to Islamic Law

When other legal heirs did not assent to bequest to plaintiffs, the property was to be devolved in inheritance by way of inheritance mutation attested in favour of parties to all legal heirs as per law and "Will" could be valid to the extent of 1/3rd of the property

"Will Deed" could only be enforceable as the bequeath of deceased if it was assented to by other legal heirs, who did not assented to the will as such the same was not enforceable

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below as there was no illegality or misreading or non-reading of evidence could be pointed out

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2018 CLC 449 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4, 5-A, 9, 11, 18 & 30Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Contention of petitioner was that notification for acquisition of land was illegal and without lawful authorityValidityPetitioner had alternate adequate remedy of raising objections to the acquisition of land in question

Petitioner had failed to request the Land Acquisition Collector to make reference under S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Constitutional petition was not maintainable in view of other adequate remedies available to the petitioner

Petitioner had not disclosed and assailed the award issued under S.11 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Grievance of petitioner with regard to apportionment of compensation amount was also amenable to the jurisdiction of Land Acquisition Court

Factual controversies were beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 YLR 931 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.115New ground raised at revision stage for the first timeValidity

Plea neither raised in the written statement nor taken before trial Court, could not be entertained or considered in the revisional jurisdiction of High Court.

2013 YLR 159 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 17Constitution of Pakistan, Art.18Ejectment petitionBona fide personal need of shop by landlord

Failure of landlord to mention in such ejectment petition or his evidence nature of business he wanted to commence in the demised shop

Validity

Every citizen would be at liberty to do any lawful business by virtue of Art. 18 of the Constitution

Landlord would not be bound to mention nature of business as after obtaining possession of demised shop, he might select any suitable business keeping in view his financial position, margin of profit and chances of success

Absence of choice of business would not affect bona fide personal need of land-lord

Tenant was provided safeguard under S. 17(6) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 in case of misuse of provision of law for personal use of demised premises by landlord.

2013 YLR 159 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 17Ejectment petitionBona fide personal need of premises by landlordTenant's plea that landlord was demanding increase in rentValidity

In absence of evidence on record, mere such demand would not cast any shadow of doubt on the requirement of landlord.

2013 YLR 140 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 25Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103Non-association of private witnesses during recovery of narcoticValidity

Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded the application of section 103, Cr.P.C.

2013 MLD 1769 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.13Talbs, performance of

Plaintiff filed pre-emption suit with the contention that transaction was sale but the same had been given the colour of gift

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Plaintiff omitted in his statement the place and time of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat and informer had not corroborated him

Plaintiff was bound to prove the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat through evidence but he had failed to corroborate the stance taken in the plaint

Plaintiff had confined to the term 'Asar-vela' with regard to information which did not come within the ambit of "exact time" when Talb-e-Muwathibat was performed

Requirements of S. 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987 therefore, had not been complied with

Plaint did not disclose the date on which notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was sent and such deficiency was sufficient to non-suit the plaintiff

Plaintiff had not challenged the gift mutation in the plaint with assertion that and same was not pre-emptable

Plaintiff was bound to get the transaction declared from civil court as sale and could be pre-empted as sale after such declaration and not gift but no such effort had been made

Format of suit being defective, the plaintiff could be non-suited on such score alone

Revision was dismissed.

2013 PCrLJ 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199(1)(b)(i), (3) & (5)Constitutional jurisdiction of High CourtScopeHabeas corpusField Investigation Unit (FIU) of Armed Forces

Petitioner sought recovery of her husband who was alleged to have been in the custody of Field Investigation Unit of Army

Validity

Field Investigation Unit was under direct control of Armed Forces and any person in their custody could not be ordered to be produced before High Court

Jurisdiction of High Court was totally ousted by virtue of Art.199(3) of the Constitution, where-under High Court had no power to make order regarding person who was member of Armed Forces or was seeking any relief against them

Detenu allegedly was in custody of FIU, which was under the control of Armed Forces, jurisdiction of High Court was ousted

High Court directed the petitioner to approach concerned authorities for redressal of her grievance

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 CLC 52 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. XIV, R. 1 & O. XX, R. 5Suit challenging gift mutation on ground of fraud and forgeryPassing of decree by Trial Court without framing issue regarding alleged fraudValidity

Statement of defendant's special attorney to the effect that no fraud was committed, would show that parties were fully aware of controversy between the parties

Defendant was duly represented through counsel and had not taken objection before Trial Court at relevant time regarding non-framing of such issue

Defendant could not claim to have been prejudiced due to non-framing of such issue

High Court dismissed revision petition.

2013 CLC 88 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 54Sale agreement regarding demised property in favour of tenant by its ownerValidity

Such agreement would not confer any title on tenant, unless same was determined by court of competent jurisdiction and would not authorize non-payment of rent by tenant from date of its execution.

2013 YLR 968 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 34 & 337-F(ii)Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, common intention, ghayr-jaifah-badiahBail, refusal ofDeceased dying due to fire shots made by co-accusedPlea that accused had only been charged for making aerial fire shots during the occurrenceValidityAccused and co-accused shared common intentionAllegation of aerial firing had to be seen in the light of the main offence

Making of aerial fire-shots was in fact to facilitate the commission of main offence and therefore could not be seen in isolation

Accused was prima facie involved in the main offence

Occurrence took place in day-light

All accused were assigned specific roles

Challan had already been submitted in court against accused

Bail petition of accused was dismissed in circumstances.