Beneficiary

2025 PLD 359 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 5, Sched. & 17Suit for recovery of dowerAgreement between the spouses qua dower to be paid in case of divorce given by husbandValidity/execution ofBeneficiaryProof, burden of

Agreement, qua dower between the parties, had been held valid and enforceable by the (Appellate/District) Court ,declaring plaintiff/lady entitled for the dower amount as specified in said agreement

Petitioner (ex-husband/defendant) assailed the decree

Validity

No doubt under S. 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 (Act), the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 (QSO) and the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (C.P.C.) are not applicable in family matters, however, as the respondent (plaintiff/lady) was the beneficiary of agreement-in-question, initially the burden of proof was on her to prove the execution of the agreement

In said behalf, respondent (plaintiff/lady) appeared as her own witness and besides producing (exhibiting) the agreement ,she also repeated the contents of the agreement in her (duly exhibited) affidavit; during the cross-examination, not only she remained consistent but was not specifically cross-examined about whether the agreement was executed in her favour or not or whether it was a forged document or was stolen by her

Respondent (plaintiff/lady) also produced two marginal witnesses of the agreement who, while appearing as witnesses, supported the claim of respondent (plaintiff/ lady)

Petitioner/defendant, while appearing as a witness, admitted that he purchased a stamp-paper, but claimed that same had been stolen and used against him subsequently, however, during cross-examination he categorically admitted that the stamp-paper of agreement was issued by him and signatures on front side as well as backside thereof were also made by him

Further, on backside of the agreement it was specifically recorded that this was for an agreement between the petitioner and respondent (parties) and petitioner's signature and his CNIC number were also mentioned there

No doubt, the scribe and the vendor of exhibited agreement were not examined but their absence actually went against the petitioner, who had to prove that the stamp-paper was issued for renewal of the license of medical store and not for agreement between the parties

Moreover, the petitioner never sought cancellation of the stamp-paper or got FIR lodged or got rapat diarised if at all his stamp-paper was stolen, as claimed by him

Oral and documentary evidence proved beyond doubt that the agreement was lawfully executed between the parties

No illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the District Court for interference

Constitutional petition, filed by defendant (ex-husband), was dismissed, in circumstances.

2015 SCMR 177 SUPREME-COURT-OF-UK Judicial Precedent

Breach of duty by trusteeBeneficiaryRemedyScope

Basic right of a beneficiary was to have the trust duly administered in accordance with the provisions of the trust instrument, if any, and the general law

Where there had been a breach of such duty, the basic purpose of any remedy would be either to put the beneficiary in the same position as if the breach had not occurred or to vest in the beneficiary any profit which the trustee may have made by reason of the breach (and which ought therefore properly to be held on behalf of the beneficiary)

Placing the beneficiary in the same position as he would have been in but for the breach may involve restoring the value of something lost by the breach or making good financial damage caused by the breach

Monetary award which reflected neither loss caused nor profit gained by the wrongdoer would be penal.