Onus to prove

Respondents / plaintiffs claimed to be owners in possession of suit land purchased from an earlier allottee and alleged that subsequently the land could not be allotted to appellants / defendants by Settlement authorities

Suit filed by respondents / plaintiffs was decreed by Trial Court in their favour but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court passed in favour of respondents / plaintiffs

Validity

Respondents / plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership and possession

Such relief could not be granted unless respondents / plaintiffs had discharged burden of proving primary transaction, namely prior allotment, proving conferment of proprietary rights upon the earlier allottee by brining on record any document in such respect

When foundational document was not produced, respondents /plaintiffs could not succeed merely on the basis of mutation entries or oral assertions

Courts were under a solemn obligation to jealously guard public property and to ensure that entries in revenue record, alleged allotments, or fiscal mutations would not become instruments for unlawful deprivation of State land through defective proof, procedural laxity or collusive conduct

Supreme Court set aside judgment and decree passed by High Court and restored that of Lower Appellate Court, consequently, suit filed by respondents / plaintiffs stood dismissed

Appeal was allowed.

A decree cannot be granted merely on account of the absence of some parties when the documentary record itself negates plaintiff's claim.

Plaintiff instituted suit for mandatory and permanent injunction claiming ownership on the basis of gift deed from his mother

Onus to prove

Plaintiff failing to demonstrate title of his mother on the date of gift deed in his favor

Brief facts were that the petitioner instituted a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of suit land claiming ownership on the basis of a registered gift deed executed by his mother in 1999 and mutation made in his favour in 1999

In 2001, upon seeking certified copies from the Settlement Department, he discovered that parts of his land were recorded as part of the Pinyari Canal since 1953, which he contended was incorrect as his land was never used for canal purposes

The respondent authority maintained that the land had been part of the Pinyari Canal alignment since 1953 and was government property not capable of transfer or gift

Held: Firstly, it was incumbent upon the petitioner/plaintiff to have established the title of the alleged donor as well as the genuineness and validity of the purported gift deed, obligations which he had failed to discharge

Petitioner/plaintiff admittedly had not produced the alleged gift deed and the witnesses

Moreover, he had not approached revenue authorities for correction of record prior to instituting the civil suit

Such admissions were fatal for the petitioner's case

Mere reliance on a mutation as conclusive proof of title was legally untenable

Moreover, it was fatal to petitioner's case, as he failed to demonstrate what title, if any, his mother possessed at the time of execution of the alleged gift deed in his favor

No illegality or material irregularity was found in the impugned judgments and decrees

Present civil revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellants / plaintiff's claimed that suit properties were Benami transactions in favour of respondent / defendant, who was their real mother

Contention of appellants / plaintiffs was that they had been deprived of their legal share by respondent / defendant who was just an ostensible owner

Validity

Attributes of "Benami transaction", in reality means a transaction in the name of another person to describe and express a transaction of a property who holds that property as an ostensible owner for its beneficial owner

In fact, it is a genre of transaction where somebody recompenses for the property but does not get hold of it in his personal name

Person in whose name such type of property is purchased is called Benamidar and the property so purchased is called Benami property

Despite the fact a Benami property is purchased in the name of someone else, the person who sponsored the transaction is the real owner

By and large, the assets acquired in the name of spouse or a child for which the money is paid from known sources of income is called Benami property

Onerous sense of duty lies on the party who raises plea of Benami transaction to prove by adducing unimpeachable evidence

Court is not required to decide such pleas on the basis of mere suspicion

Mode and manner of transaction is to be established by corroborating intentions of parties at the relevant time which could be congregated from surrounding circumstances such as relationship/association of parties, the motive or aspiration implicit in transactions including subsequent comportment and factum of possession of the property and custody of title documents

Best possible evidence could have been adduced by deceased himself if he had any dispute with regard to title of properties which he never raised in his lifetime

Even if properties were purchased through funds or resources of deceased husband, then both husband and wife were privy to such arrangements/transactions in their own marital relationship

After passing of several years, children could not question or challenge title or ownership of properties in the name of their mother without any cogent proof or trustworthy evidence that she was actually an ostensible owner

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

Appeal was dismissed.

Memorandum of appeal was not signed by Chief Executive or legally authorized person and this was against the mandate of O. XXIX, R. 1, C.P.C.

In a suit by or against corporation any pleading could be signed and verified on behalf of corporation by Secretary or Director or other principal officer of the corporation, who was liable to depose to the facts of the case

Memorandum of appeal could be signed as per O. XLI, R. 1, C.P.C. by appellant or his pleader, and a Revision Petition could also be signed by petitioner or its pleader as revisional jurisdiction was a part of general appellate jurisdiction of superior Courts

As a beneficiary, the petitioner / Company was required to prove allegation of illegal use of electricity and genuineness of assessments so imposed on respondent / plaintiff but no evidence was brought on record

Electricity meter of respondent / plaintiff was defective and she had applied for its replacement which was not replaced

High Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, as there was no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellants/plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 (mother and daughter) were passengers on the bus, while the remaining appellants/ plaintiffs were immediate family members affected indirectly by the consequences of the accident

As a result of the accident, appellant/ plaintiff No. 1 was rendered permanently disabled, causing physical, emotional, and financial distress to the family

The primary claim was that the bus was mechanically unfit and unstable from the start of the journey, whereas, defendant company contended that the accident occurred due to a fault of another vehicle which suddenly changed lanes, forcing the bus driver to swerve, resulting in a rollover

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit, awarding Rs. 140,000 to plaintiff No. 1 and Rs. 40,000 to plaintiff No. 2

Dissatisfied from the Trial Court's decision, the appellants/plaintiffs filed the present appeal

Held: Considering that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur 'the thing speaks for itself' only supplied an inference and not a conclusive presumption and since the defendants through their evidence were able to cast doubts by denying the claim of the appellants, the appellants/ plaintiffs were required to produce some expert evidence to bridge the gap but none was produced

The evidence brought by the defendants remained unchallenged

Since the appellants/plaintiffs had opted to take a specific position that occurrence was due to bus's mechanical and fitness failure, therefore, they had to prove it by producing some evidence but they failed to do so

It was clear that in the present case doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not attracted and normal rule of evidence prevailed, therefore, the onus of proving negligence on part of the defendant was on the appellants/plaintiffs, particularly when the defendant had unrooted the prima facie presumption by producing bus driver, bus hostess and workshop in-charge, since it was appellant/ plaintiffs' position that the accident occurred due to fault in the bus

Neither the appellants/plaintiffs sought to rely on the record of maintenance and fitness of the vehicle in issue nor they sought to produce any such record or evidence through process of the court in terms of O. VII, R. 14, read with O. XVI, Rr. 1 & 2 of the C.P.C.

Had the appellants/plaintiffs applied for expert [advice or evidence] for the inspection of the bus or sought appointment of any expert and the response the respondent/defendant company had opposed such prayer, there would have been some inference in favour of the appellants/ plaintiffs

Although it was proved that appellant/plaintiff No.1 had sustained injuries, she was bedridden for life and her family members might be facing trauma and emotional stress for life, however, it was not proved that those had occurred due to direct negligence by the respondent/defendant company

There was nothing on record which could have established that the bus carrying the appellants/plaintiffs had any mechanical fault, which fault was then instrumental for causing the accident

Appeal being without merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Present matter revolved around the dispute as to whether the petitioners/plaintiffs, claiming to be legal heirs of the deceased, could successfully challenge the sale deed in question and the subsequent mutation relating to the suit land

They asserted that the said documents were fictitious, fraudulent, forged, and without consideration

The core issue of the matter was regarding the validity of these transactions and whether the petitioners/plaintiffs were entitled to declaration of ownership and possession of the disputed land

Held: Onus was upon the respondent/ defendant who was beneficiary of the document i.e. sale deed to prove the transaction of sale, payment of consideration, execution of document in the presence of credible witnesses and availability of funds to pay the sale price

It was discernable from the statement of DW-1, special attorney of respondent/defendant and witness of the sale deed that he could not prove cash payment which was shown in the sale deed or claimed to have been paid by the respondent/defendant

The entire statement of DW-1 was unworthy of any credence and was otherwise inadmissible in law

In view of the statement of DW-1 as attorney of respondent/defendant wherein he had not supported the plea of respondent regarding payment of sale price, it was necessary for the respondent to appear as a witness to explain her position which was not done on the plea that she did not appear in the court

Despite admission of DW-1 that for the purpose of execution and completion of power of attorney in his favour she did come to kutchery, therefore, the plea for non-appearance was rightly not accepted by the trial court and as a consequence adverse presumption was rightly drawn against the respondent/ defendant for withholding the best evidence under Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

It was manifest from evidence of the respondent/ defendant that no independent witness of the settlement of bargain or execution and registration of sale deed was produced to support and prove the alleged transaction of sale or execution of sale deed

None of the pivotal role-players such as patwari, tehsildar, sub-registrar, stamp vendor or deed writer were produced in evidence

It was a case in which no independent witness was produced in support of the alleged sale

For the above reasons, the impugned judgment of the District Court was set aside and the judgment of the trial court was restored

Present civil revision petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Withdrawal of suit/appeal on the basis of compromise by two sisters (plaintiffs) with brothers (defendants) after receiving their share in the inheritance

Effect

Suit filed by the respondents/daughters was dismissed, but the appeal was allowed

Validity

Respondent substantially dissipated the onus, thus, being beneficiaries of the gift mutations burden was shifted upon the petitioners to prove the validity of the gift initially by describing the day, date, time, names of the witnesses and venue of the transaction as well the offer made by the donor and acceptance of the offer of gift by the petitioners as well as delivery of possession of gift property in their pleading and said asserted stance should be proved through believable and corroborative evidence as well as to prove subsequent event regarding registration of gift deed independently, however, petitioners failed to prove the ingredients of gift, which legal flaw vitiated the validity of gift deed

Non-proving of the asserted stance of gift transaction through corroborative, credible and trustworthy evidence was considered a material flaw, which dismantled the very foundation of the stance of the petitioners

Petitioners tried to deprive the respondent from her inherited property by committing fraud and getting the gift mutations entered in their favour, whereas, such like custom/practice of depriving of the females from their accrued share in the inheritance had seriously been deprecated

One of the plaintiffs (daughter) appeared before the Trial Court and got her statement recorded on oath to the effect that she had received her share from the petitioners and that statement was not controverted by the petitioners, thus, being the beneficiary of the gift transaction they themselves had dismantled the validity of the gift mutations

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

The instant matter brought into focus the jurisprudential and evidentiary imperatives surrounding the alleged oral transfer of immovable property by way of gift, particularly where such a claim was advanced to circumvent the vested inheritance rights of a female legal heir

Petitioner/plaintiff and respondent/defendant were real siblings and the only legal heirs of their deceased father, who passed away on 08.10.1998

The dispute concerned agricultural land (the "Suit Property")

The petitioner/plaintiff (sister of respondent/defendant who was the beneficiary of the gift) filed a suit on 24.02.2011 seeking cancellation of mutation No. 600 dated 29.04.1998, recorded as a gift in favor of her brother (respondent/defendant) and alleged that the gift mutation was obtained fraudulently and without knowledge, consent, or valid intention of their deceased father

It was contended by the petitioner that after their father's death, the petitioner trusted her brother's assurance that her share had been included in an inheritance mutation; that she accepted small payments under the impression they were her share of the property income; that upon facing financial hardship and requesting to sell her share, the brother refused and she discovered the alleged mutation of gift; that she had no knowledge of such a gift, asserting it was forged and not in accordance with law

It was the case of the respondent that his claim was firmly anchored in lawful entitlement under a gift dated 18.04.1998 from his father which was made during his life

He alleged that all requirements of a valid gift (offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession) were fulfilled

Held: Present case was a typical case where a woman was deprived of her rightful inheritance under the pretense of an alleged oral gift made by the deceased father to her brother

Such claims were often used by male heirs to exclude female relatives, prompting courts to remain vigilant against fraudulent practices involving oral gifts, which were frequently employed to deny women their legal entitlements

The essential legal requirements for validating such transactions, by now, have been firmly established in our jurisprudence and require no further elaboration

While juxtaposing the facts of the case in hand, High Court was of the opinion that both the courts below had acted illegally and with material irregularity while exercising jurisdiction

The respondent as the principal beneficiary and direct participant in the purported gift was the most vital witness to establish its essential elements, yet he conspicuously chose not to appear before the court, offering no reasonable justification for his absence, and instead relied on the testimony of his son, "TS" (DW-7), who appeared merely as his attorney

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the unequivocal position in terms of Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, it did not behoove to reason as to how such fatal and inherent defect escaped the attention of both the Courts below

Respondent/defendant's son was in no position to testify on behalf of his father regarding offer and acceptance of gift

The written statement filed by the defendant/respondent did not find mention the presence of DW-7 on the alleged occasion of oral gift, thus, the mandatory ingredients of offer of gift by the donor and acceptance thereof by donee, had gone abegging in this case

Therefore, non-appearance of defendant/respondent was an incurable defect in his quest to prove the gift

Concurrent findings of the courts below fell within the exception of interference for exercising revisional jurisdiction of the court and the same were therefore set aside

The civil revision was allowed and the suit filed by the petitioner (plaintiff) was decreed as prayed for.

Primarily a person, immediately, after theft found to be in possession of the stolen property, the presumption would be that either he was a thief or in possession of goods with knowledge that those were stolen, however, mere possession of the stolen property was not sufficient to constitute an offense under S.411, P.P.C., rather it had to be established that the person in possession of the stolen property had dishonestly received or retained the property knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen

Onus is always on the prosecution to prove the essential elements of the offence and in case of failure by the prosecution to prove the basic ingredients i.e. receipt or retention of property belonging to someone else, the property being stolen, the existence of knowledge or belief on the part of the person found in possession, and the receipt and retention as dishonest, no bail can be refused in such circumstances and no conviction can be awarded on such analogy.

The reason being that it is the plaintiff who has come to the Court to seek such declaration which is in fact a positive declaration being sought by the plaintiff

In terms of Art.117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the onus to prove a claim is on the person who asserts such claim

It is not that plaintiff can come to the Court and thereafter, on the basis of defendants evidence try to make out its case

It was the plaintiffs who had sought a declaration of benami transaction and had prayed to give judgment as to their alleged legal right on the basis of facts asserted by them, therefore, it was for them to prove that those facts existed for which the burden laid on them.

Party approaching Court for grant of relief has to discharge burden on the strength of his own evidence and cannot avail any benefit from any weakness in the case of opposite party.

Suit filed by petitioner/plaintiff was decreed by Trial Court in his favour but Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings and dismissed the suit

Validity

Petitioner/ plaintiff was duty bound to prove his case on the strength of his own evidence

Burden of proof, under Art. 117 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, is on person who desires Court to give decision in his favour

Petitioner/ plaintiff was to prove his case on his own legs and could not take benefit from weaknesses of defendant's side

Petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove execution of document through evidence

Mere placing of deed on record did not establish that documents had been exhibited

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff must prove the case with cogent, trustworthy and consistent evidence and cannot take advantage of shortcomings of defendant's side.

Final attestation of mutation was held in year 2001 in presence of predecessor-in-interest of respondents / plaintiffs but they did not raise any objection at the time of final attestation

Record of rights, under S. 52 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, carried presumption of truth

Strong evidence was required to rebut the allegation and there was no evidence on record that mutation entries were made in the name of petitioner / defendant with collaboration of Revenue staff

There was no evidence brought on record that mutation entries were not conducted in accordance with law

Both the Courts below erred to draw the conclusion that burden of proof was on beneficiary of mutation on whose name entries were made

Such conclusion was against the provision of S.52 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Mutation entries carried presumption of correctness and could not be lightly reversed in absence of strong evidence in rebuttal

Burden of proof was on the party claiming title and possession of property

Party who desired a judgment from Court of competent jurisdiction in his favour was to discharge the burden on truthful and consistent evidence

High Court set aside concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below as the same were result of misreading and non-reading of evidence resultantly suit filed by respondents / plaintiff was dismissed

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioners / plaintiffs claimed to be owners of shop in question and assailed mutation entered in the name of respondent / defendant

Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in favour of petitioners / plaintiffs was modified by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

If any fraud was committed than in that case petitioners / plaintiffs could sue heirs for recovery of amount received from respondent / defendant for non-disbursement amongst siblings and their mother

Respondent / defendant could not be put at task or penalized as he had made payment independently to own a shop from its owners through registered sale deed and such transaction was not even questioned in the suit

Petitioners / plaintiffs were on one side and his brothers, nephews and uncles were on the other to repudiate their claim in respect of agricultural land and in particular shop in question

Such divide of family members inferred High Court to conclude that petitioners / plaintiffs did not approach Court with clean hands

Petitioners / plaintiffs failed to discharge onus of proof of issues pertaining to mutations of disputed shop as fake and product of fraud and misrepresentation

Respondent / defendant was the sole owner of suit property

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court directing correction of revenue record by inserting names of heirs in agriculture land with possession through partition

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Weaknesses of the evidence of the plaintiff does not entitle respondents for out-right decretal of their suit.

Plaintiff cannot be allowed to take benefit from weakness or lapses of defendant's evidence.

Petitioner/ plaintiff claimed that thoroughfare situated on southern side of his purchased property was converted to Kacha Road and the same was given in his ownership

Both the Courts below declined to grant interim injunction in favour of petitioner/plaintiff

Validity

Party who is relying on a specific deed or document of title in respect of his ownership, he/she has to prove the same through cogent and trustworthy evidence

Deed produced by petitioner/ plaintiff on one hand was scribed on a plain paper and on the other the same was an unregistered document/deed

For grant of temporary injunction under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 C.P.C., petitioner/ plaintiff was required to establish existence of three, essential ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss if interim injunction was not granted in his favour

Petitioner/plaintiff failed to establish such ingredients

High Court declined to interfere in the orders and judgments passed by two Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mode of proof is the procedure by which "facts in issue" and also "the relevant facts" have to be proved during trial.

Respondent/plaintiff sought recovery of cost of limestone allegedly excavated by appellants/defendants during construction of road from the area leased to him

Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent/ plaintiff

Validity

Person who alleged a certain fact had to prove the same

No specific incident with regard to when, through whom and how illegal excavation of limestone was done by appellants/defendants

It was also not mentioned in the plaint as to how the limestone was transported

Any evidence led in such regard was beyond the scope of pleadings

Suit filed by respondent/ plaintiff was not maintainable in view of bar contained in R. 236 of Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, as no Court or other authority had jurisdiction to entertain or to adjudicate upon any matter which Provincial Government or Licensing Authority was empowered by or under rules to dispose of or to determine

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and had dismissed the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Onus is always upon the person alleging as there is a presumption of regularity in all official acts and until that was rebutted, the actions cannot be challenged

Specific pleadings must be made with reference to particular mala fide and the same is not interchangeable with any other kind of mala fide

Person alleging mala fide against government should not be allowed a roving enquiry into the files of government for fishing out some kind of a case

Under the concept of separation of powers, investigation of a criminal case falls in the domain of police

If independence of judiciary is hallmark of democratic dispensation then on the other hand independence of investigation agency is equally important to the concept of rule of law

Undue interference in each other's role destroys the concept of separation of powers and may go towards defeating of jurisdiction

Bypassing whole procedure and methodology would not help the petitioners

There were certain alternate remedies available to petitioners which they could resort to

High Court declined to declare arrest and detention of detenus as illegal

Constitutional petition was dismissedm, in circumstances.

One of the appellants / landlords ,while appearing as a witness, categorically asserted that the respondents / tenants had defaulted in payment of rent w.e.f. January, 2013

Though said assertion was refuted by the respondents / tenants in their reply but they had failed in discharging the onus

When the landlord seeks eviction of his tenant(s) on the ground of default in payment of rent, he has to only assert the factum of default supported by affidavit and the onus then would shift upon the tenant(s) to prove that he/they has/have not defaulted in payment of rent

Rent Controller founded his conclusion by wrongly relying upon evidence produced by the respondents / tenants

Thus, the appellants / landlords remained successful in proving that the respondents / tenants committed default in payment of rent

High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller ; consequently , the ejectment petition stood accepted and the respondents / tenants were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the rented-premises (house) to the appellants / landlord within thirty (30) days

Appeal , filed by the landlords, was allowed.

Petitioner/defendant claimed to be owner of suit property on the basis of mutation of sale attested by revenue authorities

Respondents/plaintiffs assailed mutation in question on the plea that their deceased predecessor-in-interest died due to cancer who remained in hospital for treatment during the period when mutation in question was attested

Suit filed by respondents/ plaintiffs was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same

Validity

Recording of report in Roznamcha regarding change in rights of a land owner was a first step to trigger process of transfer of rights

Mutation was sanctioned by order of Revenue Officer made in presence of the person whose right was acquired and he had been identified by two respectable persons and an inquiry in such behalf was conducted in common assembly of concerned estate

Entry recorded in Roznamcha was merely a ministerial act performed by Patwari which was incorporated in register of mutations culminating into an order of passing of mutation under S. 42(6) of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967

Act of recording of transaction regarding change of rights by Patwari at the behest of an acquirer in Roznamcha did not constitute an admission of transaction on the part of seller

Petitioner/defendant failed to discharge burden of proof regarding alleged transactions in terms of personal appearance of deceased predecessor-in-interest of respondents/plaintiffs and witnesses before Revenue officer, payment of sale consideration, delivery of possession, subsequent dispossession, recording of transaction in Roznamcha and lawful attestation of mutation in question

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution was bound to prove its case against accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt but no such duty was caste upon accused to prove his innocence

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court as the same was not supported by confidence inspiring evidence and accused was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Held, that question involved was whether appointment of respondent fell within the ambit of Art. 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution and principles and prerequisites relating to writ of quo warranto

In principle, writ of quo warranto can be instituted by a person, though he may not come within the meaning of words aggrieved person

To maintain a writ of quo warranto there is no requirement for an aggrieved person and a whistle-blower need not be personally aggrieved in the strict sense and may relay information to Court to inquire from the person holding public office

At the same time, it was essential to see whether petitioner had placed any material before High Court to attract Art.199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution and whether respondent lacked qualification, skill, competence, and experience to hold subject post and whether respondent was a Member of Majlis-e-Shoora and could not hold any other public office

Petitioner was not able to establish that respondent suffered from any inherent disqualification

It was for the petitioner to satisfy the High Court that appointment of respondent as Chairperson by Prime Minister was tarnished by favouritism and cronyism

Other than oral assertions and unsubstantiated allegations nothing was placed on record to support such assertion

For holding of election for appointment of Board of Directors of SSGCL it was for the competent authority to take steps in accordance with law

High Court declined to interfere in appointment of respondent as Chairperson of SSGCL

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant / plaintiff was aggrieved of dismissal of his suit filed against respondent / defendant newspaper for publishing a news item in its newspaper

Validity

Onus was on respondent / defendant to prove its plea by calling record of relevant authorities and failure to do the same would result in adverse inference to be drawn in terms of Art. 129 (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 for withholding best evidence

High Court depreciated practice of mere publication of news without confronting the originator of the news or concerned person to prove the fact that he had so reported

High Court awarded general damages against respondent / defendant newspaper, as appellant / plaintiff failed to demonstrate loss of any special damages in any reference and apparent defamation was demonstrated from record

High Court directed respondent / defendant newspaper to also publish apology in its newspaper in the similar manner in which defamatory news was published

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Plaintiff cannot deserve any benefit from lapses or weaknesses of defendant's case.

If a person charges another with fraud or misrepresentation, it is incumbent upon him to substantiate his allegations by making a statement on oath and by giving the other party an opportunity to cross-examine him

Pleadings of the parties are not evidence, and facts alleged in the pleadings must be proved through evidence adduced by or on behalf of the party who had claimed the existence of such facts

Mere averments and pleadings are of no value and cannot be relied upon unless proved through cogent evidence.

Plaintiff must prove his case on the strength of his own evidence; he cannot take benefit from weaknesses of defendant's case.

Any person who claims title through a mutation and said mutation is challenged, the burden of proof regarding transaction embodied in the mutation is upon such person

Mutation by itself does not confer any title and beneficiary is bound to revert to original transaction and prove the same.

Agreement to sell was comprised of 03 pages and only on the last page of the document, the signature of one of the respondents was affixed

When all the part of agreement to sell was not signed, it made the agreement to sell/document doubtful and that could not be rely upon in any way; unless not proved that all 03 pert were produced with the same aim/object and those were signed by the executor

No sign of any identifier was on the agreement to sell

On each pert there was no signature of the vendee, so the execution of document could not be said to be proved

Petitioners did not file any application for comparison of the signature/thumb mark presented on the agreement to sell before the Trial Court inspite of the fact that the matter remained pending there for about six years

From the very beginning from the respondent's side, it was denial that no such agreement to sell was executed by the respondents

Petitioners were the beneficiaries of the agreement to sell and they were under obligation to prove the agreement to sell

Existence of agreement to sell, did not mean that it was validly executed and a proved document

When such document which create a right or mentioned some rights or obligations and if it was denied by the other side who was being effected by said document, that person who was beneficiary of the document had to prove the document.

When sanctity of gift was challenged or called into question, especially on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation, beneficiary not only had to prove valid execution of gift deed or mutation but also the original transaction

Owner of a portion of suit property was not impleaded as party to the suit and was not provided with an opportunity to defend himself

No adverse order could be passed against such owner as it would amount to condemning him unheard

Free and fair opportunity of defending and presenting one's case was to be provided

High Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below as no illegality and irregularity was committed

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S. 115, C.P.C. could not disturb concurrent findings of facts by two Court below when the same did not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of evidence

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondents/plaintiffs claimed to be owners of suit property and alleged that mutation on the basis of oral gift made by them in favour of petitioner/defendant was result of fraud

Suit was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same in favour of respondents/plaintiffs

Validity

In case of oral gift, onus was always on donee to prove through cogent and concrete evidence that donor made gift to him voluntarily, without duress and with all senses, he had accepted the same and possession was delivered to him towards completion of that transaction

If any of such ingredients/component was missing, claim of gift was rejected

When respondents/plaintiffs deposed that they did not appear before revenue officer for attestation of mutation and gift was not made by them, onus was shifted upon petitioner/defendant as beneficiary to prove attestation of mutation as well as transaction reflected therein

Respondents/plaintiffs were Pardahnashin, illiterate, advanced aged, simpleton village ladies and their valuable rights in suit property were going to be transferred

Extraordinary precautions and special care was to be taken to safe guard rights of a weaker limb of the society

Petitioner/defendant was beneficiary of mutation in question and he was bound to prove gift transaction through trust worthy, believable, unimpeachable affirmative evidence but he failed to dislodge such mandatory burden

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner assailed election of respondent/ returned candidate on the plea of use of corrupt and illegal practices by the latter

Validity

Onus of proof was not discharged merely on preponderance of probabilities but standard of proof was required to be proved like a criminal or quasi-criminal charge, for which credible and reliable evidence was required to prove the charge beyond any reasonable doubt

Burden to prove illegal and corrupt practices was heavily upon petitioner and allegations were to be proved with such standard as was required for proving charge in criminal trial

In case of doubt arising out of material placed before Election Tribunal, its benefit was to go to the returned candidate

Election results were not to be set aside lightly

Will of electorates should ordinarily be respected

Setting aside an election result was a serious matter and should not be done lightly

Transparency of elections was the core of democratic system

Material facts were to include complete chain of material event and basis in support of allegations

Material facts meant a complete bundle of facts which were sufficient for giving cause of action and must be specifically averted as to how the result of petitioner was materially affected

There should not be any vagueness in allegation and in case the petitioner does not comply with such requirement, there will be lack of material facts and particulars and the election petition can be dismissed

Allegations levelled by petitioner in the present case were frivolous, vague and indefinite without support of adequate statements of material facts regarding truth for a recount

High Court declined to interfere in election results as petitioner failed to establish the allegations

Election petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

If gift is challenged by donor then burden to prove its genuineness shifts upon its beneficiary / donee.

Respondent / plaintiff assailed gift deed executed in favour of applicant / defendant on the plea of fraud and collusion, as he was confined in Central Prison on the date when gift deed was alleged to have been signed by him

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently dismissed suit and appeal filed by applicant / defendant

Validity

Statement of Revenue Officer who went to Central Prison was silent with regard to obtaining signatures of two attesting witnesses of Gift deed

Such gift under Art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 could not be proved in absence of two testing witnesses

Not only the names of attesting witnesses of gift in question were missing in "In and Out Register" of Central Prison but name of alleged donee was also missing therein

Alleged donee was not present at the time of execution of gift deed, which could not be made or executed in absence of donee, who was required to accept the gift

In absence of mandatory condition of acceptance of gift by donee, which was one of the three mandatory conditions to constitute a valid gift and to make it enforceable and binding on the parties there too, strict compliance of such mandatory condition was not satisfied

Applicant / defendant's own evidence did not prove making or execution of gift in question by respondent / plaintiff and finding to such effect by both the courts below was correct and justified

Jurisdiction of High Court under S.115, C.P.C. was narrower as concurrent findings of fact could not be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction unless Courts below while recording findings of fact had either misread the evidence or had ignored any material piece of evidence or the findings were perverse and had reflected some jurisdictional error

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below which were well reasoned, balanced and in accord with pleadings and evidence of parties and law

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Initial presumption under S. 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is that a negotiable instrument/cheque is made, drawn, accepted or endorsed for consideration

Such presumption is rebuttable but onus is on the person denying consideration to allege and prove the same

Where execution of negotiable instrument is admitted, burden of proof of non-payment of consideration lies on the executant.

In contempt proceedings matter of placing onus is totally different from a case under criminal law, which presumes innocence of accused and places burden on prosecution to establish charge against latter beyond a reasonable doubt

Onus is entirely upon person charged, to prove his innocence.

By owning the assets though burden shifted on accused but still it was prosecution who had to establish that sources shown by accused firstly during inquiry/investigation and secondly before Accountability Court, were not legal or not in conformity with his properties

Investigating officer on each occasion failed to properly investigate the matter

Investigating Officer was obliged to investigate each and every aspect of case keeping in view the defence version taken by accused at the time of investigation

Prosecution was supposed to have discovered and proved the known sources of accused

Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal was narrow and limited as in acquittal presumption of innocence was significantly added to the cardinal rule of criminal jurisdiction and accused was presumed to be innocent until proved guilty and such presumption of innocence was doubled

High Court declined to interfere in judgment of acquittal passed by Accountability Court in favour of accused

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

All sale mutations were challenged by illiterate and Paradhnashin lady by contending that those were without consideration, without her consent and she never appeared before any revenue officer/ official

Beneficiaries were required to prove, firstly independently factum of sale, secondly payment of sale consideration, thirdly presence of vendor before local commission and putting her thumb impression and fourthly her due identification so that the vendor could not be misidentified

Near and dear i.e. husband and son of lady were alive, who were not identifier of vendor

One who identified the vendor did not know her rather had never met her ever

Payment of sale consideration was not proved

None of the witnesses deposed that in his presence sale consideration was paid

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Customs Authorities seized bitumen of foreign origin from warehouse of respondent on the plea of smuggled / non-duty paid

Customs Appellate Tribunal allowed appeal filed by respondent and goods were ordered to be restored

Validity

Documents produced by respondent about local purchase and corresponding Sales Tax Returns which were official documents were relied upon by Customs Appellate Tribunal

Such documents shifted burden upon Customs Authorities to show that the same were not genuine

Documents were not got verified from relevant quarters by Customs Authorities to reach conclusion whether the same were genuine or not and whether the same related to the goods in question or not

Burden that shifted upon Customs Authorities on production of documents by respondent in terms of S.187 of Customs Act, 1969, to substantiate the goods was non-duty paid had not been properly discharged

Findings of fact about genuineness of documents and lawful possession of goods were not shown to be against record

High Court could not interfere in findings of fact about genuineness of receipts relied upon by Customs Appellate Tribunal as no question of law had arisen that required determination by High Court

High Court answered the question in negative as Customs Authorities could not establish that respondent had produced bogus record

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

Onus lies on the person who wants to establish the genuineness of the transfer.

Initial presumption is that the negotiable instrument is made, drawn, accepted or introduced for consideration , but under the law this is a rebuttable presumption and onus is on the person who denies consideration to allege and prove the same.

Imperative for plaintiff to prove his case independently and without merely getting any support or flaws/lapses, if any, of his adversary.

Accused is always presumed to be innocent and onus of proving commission of offence and guilt of accused lies on prosecution

Exception has been provided under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 to such rule and has been provided in S. 14(c) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Notwithstanding presumption contained in S. 14(c) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, initial burden of proof always rests on prosecution

Burden to prove all ingredients of charge always lies on prosecution and it never shifts on accused, who can stand on plea of innocence assigned to him under law till it is dislodged

Prosecution is never absolved from proving charge beyond reasonable doubt and burden shifts to accused only when prosecution succeeds in establishing presumption of guilt.

Lower Appellate Court erred in law by holding that agreement relied upon by appellant / plaintiff was merely a sale agreement and was not a registered document and only a registered document had sanctity attached to it

Lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate that cause of action for filing suit for specific performance could arise only when party to agreement avoided or refused to perform his agreed part of contract and failed to transfer title of suit property through registered deed

Burden to prove contents of document and passing of consideration did not shift upon beneficiary in case of denial of execution of such document by executor, as such principle was applicable where there was denial or rebuttal by respondent / defendant himself and or by implication

Concurrent findings of fact could not be respected if the same were based on misreading and non-reading of evidence available on record

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two courts below and decreed the suit in favour of appellant / plaintiff

Second appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Initial burden of proof is on prosecution to establish possession of properties by an accused disproportionate to his known sources of income to prove charge of corruption and corrupt practices under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Once such burden is satisfactorily discharged, the onus is shifted to accused to prove the contrary and to give a satisfactory account of holding the properties.

Pleadings of parties are not evidence, and facts alleged in pleadings must be proved through evidence of a party which claims existence of such facts.

Petitioners contended that respondents nominated by Federal Government were not selected through any public advertisement nor from data bank maintained by Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan in terms of S. 166 of the Companies Act, 2017

Validity

Initial onus was shifted upon respondents/Federal Government to demonstrate that discretionary power exercised by Federal Government before nomination of respondents was considered through a structured concept

Evidence to that extent was to be brought on record, otherwise it would be considered that all respondents were nominated through arbitrary manner on the whims and caprice of Federal Government.