Suit was dismissed concurrently
Suit was dismissed concurrently legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Plaintiff had neither specified the date when she came to know with regard to impugned mutation nor any explanation had been given to justify her contention
Mutation entries were made on behalf of predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff who had died
Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff had not filed any suit to challenge the impugned mutation in his life time
Plaintiff had filed present suit after the death of her predecessor-in-interest and no fraud had been committed by the defendants
Court was to decide the question of limitation first and thereafter proceed to decide the matter on merits
Suit barred by time was to be dismissed even if nobody had raised question of limitation
If proceedings brought before the Court were barred by time, Court could not assume jurisdiction and had no jurisdiction in the matter unless delay was condoned
Disposal of suit on merits alone was not sufficient for a presumption that delay had been condoned
Suit/ plaint should be rejected forthwith even without resorting to the evidence or framing of any issue if same was barred by limitation
Nothing was on record that impugned mutation was collusive and fictitious
No illegality, irregularity, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below
Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
Contention of plaintiffs was that defendants were not entitled for the estate of deceased and inheritance mutation in their favour was based on fraud
Suit was dismissed concurrently
Validity
Presumption of truth was attached to the revenue record which was more than a century-old
Contention of plaintiffs was based on assumption and presumption without any proof or record
Plaintiffs had failed to prove that additional share of defendants was due to inheritance from the deceased
Plaintiffs had deprived the female descendants of deceased from their legal share in the inheritance
Plaintiffs had not come to the Court with clean hands
Relief of declaration was discretionary and not available to such persons
Predecessors of plaintiffs were aware of the distribution of estate of the deceased but they had not challenged the entries of revenue record during their lifetime
Plaintiffs had not mentioned the date of their alleged knowledge of the impugned mutation in their plaint
Plaintiffs had no locus standi to challenge the alleged entries of revenue record in circumstances
Plaintiffs had failed to prove fraud in execution of alleged documents
Present suit had been filed after forty years from the death of father of plaintiffs
Suit was time-barred in circumstances
No illegality, irregularity, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Contention of plaintiff was that he had paid consideration amount of suit property and defendant was Benamidar and impugned mutation was based on fraud
Suit was dismissed concurrently
Validity
Plaintiff was bound to prove that transaction in favour of defendant was Benami and fraud had been committed
Plaintiff had failed to discharge the said onus through cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence
No witness had been produced in whose presence the amount of consideration had been paid on behalf of plaintiff
Plaintiff had not asserted the time, date, month, year or place when consideration amount had been paid on his behalf
Defendant was working abroad for the last many years and he had constructed a house on the suit land and his family had been residing therein
Burden to prove fraud would be on the person who had alleged fraud
Plaintiff had failed to discharge the said burden
Plaintiff had failed to prove through tangible evidence that disputed sale transaction was a 'Benami' transaction
Mere oral assertion on the part of plaintiff qua the disputed transaction without any independent and cogent evidence could not be believed
Defendant had proved that suit land had been purchased by him from his own pocket and house had been constructed where his family was residing
No illegality, irregularity, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below
Revision was dismissed, in circumstance.
Although there was no time frame for the compliance of alleged agreement but same was to be done within the reasonable time which otherwise had been provided as three years
Limitation would start from the date of refusal but in absence of any refusal too it would become the duty of beneficiary to make efforts to safeguard his rights
If no such efforts were made then after the lapse of three years, beneficiary of such agreement would be barred by the law of limitation to file suit
No date of refusal in the present case had been mentioned in the plaint to calculate the limitation
Limitation would not start from the refusal as beneficiary of agreement was bound to assert his right in the Court within the scope of limitation even there was no refusal on the part of other party
No illegality, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below
Revision was dismissed in limine.
Plaintiff had to prove and establish his case on the strength of his own evidence and he could not get any benefit from the shortcomings and weakness of the case of the defendant
Plaintiff, in the present suit, had claimed general damages and he was required to establish the same through cogent and reliable evidence
Mere feeling of resentment in one's mind was not sufficient to establish general damages
If a person claimed mental torture/agony then initial burden would lie upon him to lead evidence on such point
General damages were to be assessed following the 'rule of thumb' and said exercise would fall within the discretionary jurisdiction of Court which had to be decided according to facts and circumstances of each case
No illegality, irregularity or infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below
Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
Contention of plaintiff was that suit land had been transferred through gift only to defeat the right of prior purchase of the plaintiff and in fact the transaction was a "sale"
Suit was dismissed concurrently
Validity
Donees had no blood relation with the donors and nothing was on record as to why suit land had been gifted
Element of gift-deed had not been substantiated from the evidence of defendants
Necessary ingredients for execution of gift-deed were lacking in the case
Even no element of love and affection appeared to have been found
Appellate Court had failed to appreciate the evidence according to the relevant provisions of law
Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below as well as gift-deed were set aside
Alleged gift-deed was declared as sale-deed and pre-emption suit was decreed subject to payment of remaining consideration
Second appeal was allowed, in circumstances.
Plaintiff was bound to prove his case and stand on his own legs and he could not be benefited by the weakness of defendant
Fact which had been admitted by the plaintiff was not required to be proved on behalf of defendant
Plaintiff had failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity or mis-reading or non-reading of evidence in the findings recorded by the Courts below
Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
Plaintiff was bound to establish that transfer of suit property was effected by a person having title or authority to create a right backed by sale consideration and delivery of possession
When value of sale transaction was over and above one hundred rupees then it could be made only by a registered instrument
Mere registration of document by itself would not furnish proof of elements of sale which must co-exist prior to execution and registration of sale deed
Plaintiff while seeking declaration was bound to implead vendor as defendant without whom suit would have no forbearance for a valid decree
Sale agreement, in the present case, was an unregistered document which required registration under the law
Sale would not be complete without registration of the deed
Sale consideration, in the present case, was Rs. 3,37,871.25/- which required registration and suit for declaration for fulfilment of such contract of sale was not competent
Where sale between the parties had not been completed, declaration could not be sought rather only course available was to file a suit for specific performance for completion of sale
Plaintiff would be at liberty to file a fresh suit for specific performance of contract under the same cause of action on the basis of alleged agreement under the ambit of limitation
Revision was disposed of in circumstances.
Plaintiffs could not rebut through confidence inspiring evidence that entries entered in the first settlement were without any justification
Findings recorded by the Courts below were based on correct appreciation of facts and law
Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
Placement of documents on record would not serve the purpose rather their execution was to be proved by evidence as required
Onus to prove the document would be on the person who relied upon the same
Law required to prove not only the document through evidence but also its contents if denied
Proof of signature on the questioned document was mandatory
If document had created financial liability then production of at least two marginal witnesses to prove its execution was necessary
Marginal witnesses should not only identify their signatures but they should witness the execution of document, passing of consideration and signing of document by the parties
Mere signature or thumb impression on a deed was not sufficient to prove its execution
If a party who relied on the document failed to meet with the criteria then said document would not be considered to be proved to shift the onus on other party
Beneficiary of agreement had to establish its execution as required
Two marginal witnesses, author of agreement, stamp vendor and attesting witnesses or the persons who witnessed the transaction were to be produced by the vendee
In the present case, only one marginal witness of the agreement had been produced by the defendant
Findings recorded by the Courts were based on mere presumptions
Agreement which was basic document had not been proved
Instrument if pertained to some financial obligation and rendered in writing should have been attested by two witnesses
Defendant being beneficiary of transaction was bound to establish a legal transaction but he could not succeed
Impugned judgments and decrees were set aside and suit was decreed
Defendant being illegal occupant was directed to hand over vacant possession of suit property to the plaintiff
Revision was allowed in circumstances.
Contention of plaintiff was that suit property was purchased through benami transaction and he was entitled to his half share
Suit was dismissed concurrently
Validity
Nothing was on record that defendant purchased suit property from the resources of plaintiff
Courts below had discussed evidence properly while dismissing the suit as well as appeal of the plaintiff
Trial Court had even taken pains to reproduce the evidence in verbatim in his judgment
Plaintiff had failed to prove transaction to be benami
No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Initial burden to prove the negative fact would stand discharged the moment a person substantiated his allegations by making a statement on oath and onus would be shifted to the other side to prove that the transaction in question was bona fide and legal
Plaintiff, as her own witness, appeared before the Trial Court and reiterated the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation on oath
Defendant was required to prove not only the validity of disputed mutation but also the bona fide and legality of transaction of gift incorporated therein
Courts below misdirected the plaintiff by misplacing the burden of proof and recorded impugned findings
Misplacing burden of proof would vitiate judgment passed by the Courts below
Trial Court illegally and erroneously failed to cast the burden on the defendant and recorded impugned findings which were perverse
Beneficiary of gift mutation was bound not only to prove the disputed mutations but also the factum of gift
Defendant neither in his written statement stated the date, time, place and name of witnesses before whom declaration and acceptance of gift was made nor any of his witnesses made such statement
Failure to establish the requirements of gift i.e. proposal and acceptance was fatal to the claim of defendant
Acceptance of gift was personal act of donee who was required to prove the same through his statement
Attorney could not substitute the donee under the law
Donee, in the present case, did not appear before the Trial Court to make statement and only his attorney appeared in the witness-box
Statement of attorney was of no avail to prove the transaction of gift
Gift incorporated in the impugned mutation had not been proved in circumstances
Neither presumption of correctness nor truth to the contents of mutation was attached under the law
Once existence of mutation was questioned by a party in the suit then the person claiming benefit thereunder was bound to prove the same
Patwari Halqa who entered the mutation and Revenue Officer who attested the same should be produced in the witness box to prove valid attestation of mutation
Defendant neither produced Patwari Halqa nor Revenue Officer who sanctioned the impugned mutations
Donee had failed to prove the valid sanctioning of impugned mutations in circumstances
Donee was not legal heir of donor nor in ordinary circumstances was entitled to get the suit property
Donor was not bound to furnish reasons for making a gift but no gift in the ordinary course of human conduct was made without reason and justification unless donor was divested of power of reasons and unless he/she was a person of unsound mind
Impugned mutations had been attested to deprive the plaintiff of her right of inheritance
Defendant had failed to justify the disinheritance of plaintiff through disputed gift mutations
Fraud would vitiate the most solemn transaction
Any transaction based on fraud would be void
Limitation did not run against void transaction nor efflux of time extinguished the right of inheritance
Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside
Impugned mutations were declared illegal, void ab initio and ineffective upon the rights of plaintiff
Plaintiff would be entitled to her legal share as per Sunni school from the inheritance of her deceased father
Revision was allowed in circumstances.
Contention of plaintiffs was that they neither made any proposal of gift in favour of defendant nor same was accepted by him
Suit was dismissed concurrently
Validity
Defendant being beneficiary, was bound to plead and prove the original transaction of gift which might have been effected prior to the day of attestation of mutation or at least on the day when it was entered by the revenue official
Conditions of gift i.e. offer, acceptance and delivery of possession must be established by the donee through his evidence
Donee was bound to prove that donor approached revenue officials for the entry and attestation of mutation in the assembly convened for the said purpose and made statement to acknowledge the oral transaction in presence of two notables of the vicinity
Party before proving an act had to narrate its details in pleadings
Written statement of defendant-donee was silent to the extent of essential details i.e. time, date, venue and names of witnesses to disclose when, where and before whom donors had made declaration of gift which was accepted by him and possession changed hands in lieu thereof
Neither any gift was made nor donor ever appeared before the revenue officer for attestation of impugned mutation of oral gift
When donor deposed that he/she did not appear before revenue officer for attestation of mutation, onus would shift upon the beneficiary to prove the attestation of mutation as well as transaction reflected therein
If any of the three ingredients of gift was not proved then it would not be a valid transaction
Major and vital contradictions existed in the statements of witnesses of defendant-donee
Number of cuttings in the relevant register while making entry and attestation of impugned mutation as well as recording of statements of the donors were on record which had made it dubious and suspicious
Attestation of mutation was a series of acts which was required to be proved independently
Mere signing or putting thumb impression on the mutation would not amount to valid attestation/execution
Witnesses on whose identification and attestation impugned mutation was sanctioned were not examined despite their availability
Adverse inference would be drawn against the beneficiary of gift mutation in circumstances
Donors were folk and illiterate ladies and when mutation was allegedly attested no independent advice was available to them
Lady who was ignorant and illiterate was equally entitled for the same treatment which was available to a pardanasheen lady
Courts of law could not remain oblivious regarding erosion of moral values
Defendant had deprived his real sisters of their valuable property
Plaintiffs being married had their independent families including husband as well as siblings
Prudent man could not conceive that while ignoring their families why they were compelled to make a gift of their property to one of their brothers
Muslim could transfer his property through declaration of gift in favour of any person
Some reason should exist as to why donor was compelled to make a gift in favour of alien while eliminating his/her heirs which was lacking in the present case
Party having personal knowledge of facts must examine himself to depose those facts and face the test of cross-examination
If sufficient infirmity on the part of party existed then he might be immuned from his personal appearance in the witness-box
Rights of simpleton, folk and illiterate ladies were involved who might not be aware of judicial proceedings and could not face the test of intricate questions to be put to them in their cross-examination
Donors-ladies were justified to appoint their close relatives as special attorney who being conversant with the facts of the case magnified entire details of the lis
No adverse inference could be drawn against the donors-ladies in circumstances
Where parties had led their evidence keeping in mind their pleadings then objection regarding non-framing of any issue or improper settling of issue would lose its weight
Donee had failed to prove the validity of gift allegedly made by the plaintiffs
Entry in the revenue record had been managed fraudulently which was void
Any superstructure built on the basis of a fraudulent transaction must collapse upon failure of such transaction
Findings recorded by the Courts below were based on mis-reading and non-reading of evidence
Defendant remained unsuccessful to establish his bona fide purchase whereas plaintiffs succeeded to establish that mutations were void, illegal, against law, based on fraud, misrepresentation and inoperative upon their rights
Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside
Suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed with costs throughout
Revision was allowed in circumstances.
Plaintiff through oral and documentary evidence had proved that his actual date of birth was 10-01-1986 and not 10-09-1992
Documents produced by the plaintiff were official record and their authenticity could not be doubted
Findings recorded by the Trial Court were based on presumptions
Appellate Court without formulating points for determination had relied upon the stance of defendants and had not considered the impact of oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff
Both the Courts below had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them
Findings recorded by the Courts below were result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence
Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside and suit was decreed
Revision was allowed in circumstances.
Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Courts below instead of taking any action dismissed the suit thus failed to administer substantial justice to the plaintiff
Plaintiff had right to be appointed against the suit post
Departmental was bound to appoint plaintiff against any vacant post with effect from date of institution of present suit
Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside
Revision was converted into writ petition and was allowed in circumstances.
Proceedings with regard to gift deed were illegal and incorrect as persons who conducted the said proceedings had no legal power to do the same
Courts below had wrongly relied on the evidence of defendants
Plaintiffs were the only legal heirs of their father
Gift deed was an attempt on the part of defendant to deprive the legal heirs from their shari share in the property of their father
Defendants had failed to establish ingredients of a valid gift
Impugned judgments and decrees were result of mis-reading of evidence
Courts below had committed material irregularity while recording the impugned findings
Impugned judgments were set aside in circumstances
Plaintiffs were declared owners of suit property and they were entitled to possession of the same
Revision was allowed accordingly.
Such entries were admissible in evidence but these required to be proved by the person relying upon it independently through affirmative evidence
Oral transaction reflected in mutation entries neither conferred the title in favour of its beneficiary nor could establish the same
When plaintiff had made statement on oath and alleged commission of fraud in attestation of mutation and denied the transaction reflected therein then onus would shift upon its beneficiary to prove the valid attestation as well as transaction embodied therein
When any witness of mutation had died, beneficiary would be bound to produce any person familiar to his thumb impression to verify it on the disputed mutation
Defendant had failed to prove the payment of sale price to the plaintiff
If payment of consideration of alleged sale had not been proved on record, there could be no sale in the eye of law
Defendant had not been able to establish on record the essential elements of valid sale
If any of the ingredients of sale was missing then vendee had to suffer
Vendee had failed to produce Revenue Officer who attested the mutation in his favour
Best evidence had been withheld by the defendant
Revenue Officer was the best person who could prove the valid attestation of mutation
Party knowing whole circumstance of the case should give evidence on his behalf and to submit for cross-examination
Vendee's non-appearance in the witness box would be possible circumstance going to discredit the truth of his version
Defendant by not appearing in the witness box had failed to discharge the onus shifted on him
Non-appearance of vendee before the Court had created doubts with regard to attestation of oral sale mutation
Statement of special attorney was liable to be ignored as he was neither witness of sale mutation nor any bargain was finalized before him
Plaintiff having affixed his thumb impression on a revenue paper could not be considered sufficient to declare that the same was obtained for attestation for oral sale mutation
Rapt roznamcha did not bear signatures of alleged vendor or vendee which was a requirement of law
Rapt roznamcha had no presumption of truth unless and until its maker was produced to prove the same
Vendee had failed to prove recording of event of sale in the register roznamcha waqiati, attestation of oral sale mutation as well as transaction of sale
Findings recorded by the courts below were result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence which were set aside
Suit was decreed
Revision was allowed in circumstances.
Plaintiff had failed to question the authenticity or any illegality in the process of transfer and execution of lease of suit property in favour of defendant
Plaintiff had not furnished the details of fraud and misrepresentation in his evidence
Defendant was owner of suit property and plaintiff being tenant failed to pay rent of the same
Plaintiff had utilized four different courts for twelve years to prolong his illegal and unlawful possession of suit property against the lawful owner
Suit filed by the plaintiff was frivolous and vexatious
Revision was time barred which was dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/
Plaintiff was directed to vacate the premises within thirty days and in case he failed to vacate the same then executing court should issue writ of possession with permission to break up locks without further notice.
Admissibility of document was to be distinguished from proof required for determining the execution and genuineness of the same
Registered sale deed by itself without proof would not confer any right
If neither original sale deed was produced nor permission was obtained for production of secondary evidence or any witness was examined then sale deed was not proved
No steps were taken to prove the contents of sale deed by leading primary or secondary evidence
Said document could not be taken into consideration
Mere tendering a document in evidence would have no evidentiary value unless its contents were proved according to law
Court was competent to look into the document and to command upon its true nature or otherwise
Non-production of witness to prove document was fatal to the case of the party with the legal consequence that the recitals of document could not be said to have been proved
Simply because no objection was raised to the production of document would not render the same as proved
Presumption of truth was attached to registered document but if its contents were challenged, the onus would shift on the beneficiary to prove the same by examining attesting witnesses
Evidentiary value of certified copy of sale deed without seeking prior permission from the Court would lose its importance
Copy of said document would not be sufficient to prove the same
No presumption of correctness could be attached to the certified copy of sale deed which was not admissible in evidence as condition precedent to the admission of secondary evidence had not been fulfilled
Beneficiary of sale deed was bound to examine marginal witnesses, identifier and Sub-Registrar was to prove valid execution of disputed sale deed
Beneficiary would not succeed to prove his case in absence of such evidence
Where execution of registered document was disputed, no presumption of truth would attach to said document and its valid execution had to be proved
If best evidence was withheld by the beneficiary inference had to be drawn against him
Entire case of plaintiff was based upon sale deed but he neither pleaded the same in his plaint nor produced it with his plaint or claimed any specific relief on the footing of said sale deed
Evidence on non-pleaded case could not be looked into and should be ignored
Alleged sale deed had not been proved in circumstances
No illegality or irregularity had been committed by the courts below
Both the courts below had exercised jurisdiction vested in them on sound reasons which was neither perverse nor arbitrary for inequitable
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Contention of plaintiffs was that they purchased suit property on instalments but defendant society had refused to transfer the same in their name
Suit was dismissed concurrently
Validity
Grounds as raised in the second appeal were raised before the Courts below who had recorded exhaustive judgments after framing of issues and recording of evidence
Nothing was on record that plaintiffs prior to cancellation of allotment of suit property had ever approached the defendant society for making payment of remaining instalments
Plaintiffs had failed to prove their case in circumstances
Impugned judgments and decrees had been passed after proper evaluation of evidence available on record
Decision of Courts below was not contrary to law
Plaintiffs had failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgments and decrees
Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Plaintiff an employee, filed suit that he was lawful allottee of suit accommodation and authorities be restrained to cancell the allotment letter
Suit was dismissed concurrently
Validity
Mere fact that plaintiff employee was not able to establish that he had occupied an accommodation, earlier allotted, before allotment letter of the present accommodation, did not render the said letter unlawful or void
Findings rendered by the courts below were not in accordance with law which were set aside
Case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision on the basis of available record
Plaintiff might take his plea with regard to re-possession of suit accommodation before the Trial Court
Revision was allowed in circumstances.
Contention of plaintiff was that registered sale deed executed in favour of defendants was illegal, and was based on fraud and same was ineffective on the rights of plaintiff
Suit was dismissed concurrently
Validity
Defendant had purchased the suit property from the ostensible owner having possession of the same and paid sale amount as consideration
Defendant had purchased the property in question with care and in good faith
Averments made in the plaint were neither asserted in the evidence produced by the plaintiff nor as narrated in the plaint
Documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff had no nexus with the case as asserted in the plaint
Pleading of the parties were not sustentative piece of evidence unless averments in the same were proved from evidence in court or admitted by the other party
Plaintiff had not adduced any evidence to prove the averments of the plaint with regard to his right in his oral as well as documentary evidence
Plaintiff therefore, had failed to prove his case through solid, cogent and reliable evidence
Both the courts below had rightly dismissed the suit after proper appraisal of evidence produced by the parties
No illegality, irregularity, mis-reading and non-reading was pointed out in the judgments passed by the courts below
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Plaintiffs had failed to prove the gift and their exclusive possession on the suit property through documentary as well as oral evidence
Defendants were owners in possession of disputed property
Registered sale deed had been properly executed in favour of defendants
Defendants had purchased the suit shop from a co-sharer and had also become co-sharer in the joint property
Co-sharer could not file a suit for declaration and possession against the other co-sharer but only a suit for partition could be filed
No misreading or non-reading of material evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below
Both the courts below had meticulously examined the entire evidence of the parties
No infirmity, legal or factual had been pointed out in the impugned judgments
Revision was dismissed in limine.
Contention of plaintiffs was that proceedings by Government of reclaiming the suit land and putting the same to auction were held at their back without notice
Suit was dismissed concurrently
Validity
Plaintiffs were in possession of suit land
No rebuttal had been produced to the claim of plaintiffs
Names of plaintiffs had been entered in the revenue record as persons in possession of suit property
Material irregularity had crept in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below
Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were set aside
Suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed as prayed for
Auction purchaser might approach the concerned authority for the refund of amount deposited by him as a consequence of the auction proceedings
Revision was allowed in circumstances.
Contention of plaintiffs was that impugned mutations had not been got attested by their predecessor during his life time
Suit was dismissed concurrently
Validity
Plaintiffs had failed to prove the attestation of impugned mutations after the demise of their predecessor
Sufficient evidence was available on file which had proved the attestation of said mutations by the predecessor of plaintiffs during his life time
Presumption of correctness was attached to the long standing entries in the revenue record which could only be rebutted through cogent and coherent evidence which was lacking in the present case
Appellate Court was justified by refusing the proposed amendment as plaintiffs had specifically prayed for cancellation of all subsequent mutations in the plaint
Mentioning of each and every subsequent mutation was not inevitable
Both the courts below had properly appreciated the evidence and had rightly non-suited the plaintiffs
No illegality, irregularity or any mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below
Revision was dismissed in limine.
Strong presumption existed, in absence of any material, in rebuttal that donor had gifted his entire share in the khata to the donees
Proof with regard to death of marginal witnesses, scribe or stamp vendor of gift deed should have been placed on record which was missing in the present case
Burden to prove transaction would shift upon the beneficiary of the same in the cases of fraud, however the initial burden would be upon the person who had alleged fraud and after discharge of initial onus it would shift upon the beneficiary to prove bona fide and genuineness of the transaction
Evidence produced in the present case by the plaintiffs was not sufficient to shift burden upon the beneficiaries of the gift
Plaintiffs who had alleged fraud and misrepresentation had to prove the same through cogent, tangible and confidence inspiring evidence
Necessary particulars and details with regard to fraud, misrepresentation, collusion or mala fide had to be unfolded in the pleadings
Bald or vague statement to such effect had no legal consequence
Evidence produced by the defendants was more cogent, convincing and confidence inspiring as compared to the evidence of plaintiffs
Plaintiffs had failed to prove the factum of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation in the execution of gift deed and mutation
Defendants had proved that gift deed was executed in accordance with law which was a registered document having presumption as to its genuineness/ truthfulness unless proved otherwise
No misreading or non-reading of evidence was pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Contention of plaintiffs was that both the courts below had failed to frame proper and specific issue with regard to gift and as a result they could not adduce any evidence regarding the same
Suit was dismissed concurrently
Validity
Trial Court was bound to frame issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties
Relief sought by the plaintiffs was different from the facts pleaded by them in the plaint
Trial Court framed issue with regard to ownership of plaintiffs in the suit land according to pleadings of the parties
Plaintiffs led evidence but nothing was uttered with regard to factum of gift
No application or request was made for amendment in the pleadings during trial and even in appeal with regard to gift specifically
Suit was filed in the year 995 and issues were framed in the year 1998
Plaintiffs could not raise objection with regard to non-framing of issue on the question of gift at such belated stage after about 20 years when they were having knowledge about the same
No prejudice had been caused to the plaintiffs as issue framed would cover the controversy of their ownership and possession in the suit land
Plaintiffs had failed to point out any jurisdictional error in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below
Revision was dismissed in limine.
Allegation of fraud or collusion for obtaining judgment or incompetence of court could be proved but judicial order need not to be proved
Formalities of delivering judgment on each issue would become of a secondary importance when court took judicial notice
Issues and relevant facts must be proved by evidence either oral or documentary except when same was judicially noticeable or admitted
Father of plaintiff had previously withdrawn his claim after receiving cost of the suit
Both the parties were co-sharer and they had approached the revenue authorities for partition of their landed property
Suit of the plaintiff was dismissed/rejected under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.
Sufficient evidence was available on record to dispose of the case on merits
Remand of the case on the basis of technicalities or some infirmities even if found was not justified
Formal quotation of evidence for resolution of issue was of no importance as no evidence had been produced by the plaintiff to prove fraud or collusion
Mere assertion that father of plaintiff was an illiterate person could not take place of evidence of fraud or collusion
Plaintiff had stepped into the shoes of his father and he was bound by judicial acts of his father/predecessor-in-interest
Plaintiff had failed to prove the issues as alleged in the pleadings
Resolution on each issue was not necessary in circumstances
No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence or mis-construction of law had been pointed out by the plaintiff
Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Both the courts below had recorded concurrent findings of law and facts after appraisal of evidence available on record and same were neither perverse nor arbitrary
No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below
No misreading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out by the plaintiff
Interference was declined in circumstances.
No decree could be passed after 31-08-1991 in favour of any person who claimed to have acquired the right of ownership through prescription or implication of law
When mortgagee was in possession of mortgage property and he received the usufruct then same should be deemed to be a payment of the mortgage money
Fresh period of limitation to be computed from the time when such payment was made
Period of limitation should be reckoned from the last transfer of right of mortgagee and not from the first creation of the usufructuary mortgage
New acquisition of right in the mortgaged property was an acknowledgement of liability with regard to the mortgaged property
Defendants had purchased rights of previous mortgagee and plaintiffs could not claim more than what had come in the possession of defendants
Impugned judgments of both the courts below were set aside and suit of plaintiffs was decreed.
Contention of plaintiffs was that they mortgaged suit property in favour of defendants but redemption had not been given effect to in the revenue record
Suit was dismissed concurrently
Validity
Continuous mortgage of suit property was in existence in favour of defendants
No redemption of suit property was available in the revenue record in favour of plaintiffs
Suit-land was in possession of defendants as mortgagees since 1870 to-date
No documentary evidence was available with regard to payment of mortgage money to the defendants or re-mortgage of suit property in their favour
Mortgage of disputed land had taken place 40 years prior to the institution of suit
Defendants had revenue record in their favour for years long
Article 148 of Limitation Act, 1908 had provided for a period of 60 years for a suit for redemption of mortgage
Present suit was filed after over 100 years of the mortgage of suit-land
Plaintiffs were debarred to seek decree for possession through redemption and they were rightly non-suited by the courts below
No illegality, material irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the findings of both the courts below
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Contention of plaintiff was that he was entitled to use the passage situated in the property of defendants on the basis of easement
Suit was dismissed concurrently
Validity
Civil Judge himself visited the site and there were more than one passages available to the plaintiff
Plaintiff was bound to prove that no other passage was available to him to establish a right of easement on the basis of necessity
Concurrent findings of facts based upon proper appreciation of evidence were on record which could not be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction
Right of easement on the basis of prescription could not be claimed by the plaintiff
No illegality or material irregularity was pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
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.
Contention of plaintiff was that disputed house had come to his ownership through domestic arrangement (partition) and defendant was his tenant
Defendant contended that he had constructed the house in question
Suit was dismissed concurrently
Validity
Plaintiff had served upon defendant notice under S.111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which had not been denied
Plaintiff had not succeeded to substantiate lease deed through evidence
Solitary attesting witness had neither affirmed the execution of lease deed nor verified the signing of the same
Plaintiff had not succeeded to substantiate that defendant had paid any premium with regard to disputed house
Partition deed in respect of ownership of the plaintiff also remained unproved and plaintiff had failed to either prove himself as lessor and the defendant as lessee
Both the parties had not discharged their burdens with regard to the facts alleged and denied in the pleadings
Documents relied by the plaintiff in evidence were never alleged nor mentioned in the plaint
Defendant had failed to substantiate his plea of ownership who had never alleged in his pleading that another person was owner of the suit house and he could not be allowed to agitate such plea in cross statement
Plaintiff had been incorporated in the revenue record as owner of the disputed house which was constructed by the defendant with the permission of another co-owner
Defendant would not be a lessee but a licensee of the disputed house which had attained the status of village Abadi
Revision was partially allowed with the findings that the defendant be compensated in terms of improvement made with regard to disputed house who would vacate the same.
Contention of the plaintiff was that defendant filed an application before District Police Officer attributing false implication of theft of his cattle against the plaintiff and imputing derogatory statements against him
Suit was dismissed concurrently
Validity
Documentary evidence produced by the petitioner-plaintiff failed to contain any defamatory imputation and any allegation of theft of cattle against the petitioner-plaintiff
Contents of application did not fall within the ambit of libel
Witness of petitioner-plaintiff appearing in the witness box stated that the petitioner-plaintiff bore a good reputation and commanded the honour and respect in the area and he had not stated that the imputation of the respondent-defendant had lowered the respect or reputation of the petitioner - plaintiff in his estimation or in the estimation of right thinking members of the society in general or made him shun to avoid the petitioner-plaintiff
Petitioner-plaintiff had not been able to establish the allegation against the respondent-defendant for causing defamatory imputation amounting to libel or slander to claim damages
No misreading or non-reading of evidence, material illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees was found
Revision was dismissed.
If the authority had exercised jurisdiction vested in it by law, then the bar was applicable and if the authority had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by statute, then the bar contained in the statute was not applicable
Plaintiffs-petitioners failed to show that the jurisdiction exercised by official defendants was not vested in them, hence, bar of jurisdiction was applicable and suit was not competent
Permission to file fresh suit could not enhance the limitation for filing suit
Under Art. 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for filing declaratory suit, the limitation was six years
Present suit was filed after six years from filing of earlier suit and the same was time barred
Plaintiffs-petitioners were bound to annex with revision petition, the certified copies of pleadings, complete evidence, orders and judgments/decrees
Due to non-filing of said documents the revision was not competent
Revision was dismissed.
Inspection report was submitted by the authority and in the said report it was not mentioned that defendants had encroached any portion from the land of plaintiff
Revision was dismissed.
"Suit was dismissed concurrently", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124942395
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Suit was dismissed concurrently"
2016 Y L R 1777
AKBAR ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. NAMA through Legal Heir and another — Respondents
Court: Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court2014 Y L R 2183
SARDAR ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. YASMIN and 3 others — Respondents
Court: Peshawar2015 C L C 250
MUNAWAR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus REHMAT KHAN — Respondent
Court: Peshawar2017 C L C Note 36
MUHAMMAD NAWAB KHAN and 3 others — Petitioners Versus AYAZ SARWAR and another — Respondents
Court: Lahore (Multan Bench)2016 Y L R 1300
Mst. ROSHAN ARA BEGUM and 8 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BANARAS and another — Respondents
Court: Lahore2014 C L C 308
MUHAMMAD HAYAT — Petitioner Versus ZAFAR IQBAL and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2020 Y L R Note 26
MUHAMMAD SALEEM BHATTI — Petitioner Versus Mst. NARGIS SITARA and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2018 C L C Note 99
MST. RANI — Applicant Versus MANTHAR and 4 others — Respondents
Court: Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)2014 Y L R 1467
Subedar (Retd.) MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus Messrs MURREE BREWERY COMPANY LTD. and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2014 Y L R 2195
QURBAN and another — Appellants Versus SHAHEEN AKHTAR and 4 others — Respondents
Court: High Court (AJ&K)