Relinquishment deed

2021 CLC 303 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possessionLimitationInheritanceRelinquishment deedProof of

Contention of plaintiffs was that they were entitled for grant of possession of suit property to the extent of their entitlement whereas defendants contended that plaintiffs had relinquished their share against consideration

Suit was partially decreed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court dismissed the same

Validity

Domestic partition of suit property between the brothers and relinquishment of his share by one the plaintiffs for a consideration had been established through oral as well as documentary evidence

Non-exhibition of relinquishment deed would make no difference in the present case

Payment of consideration had been made to the plaintiff by his brother who had relinquished his share from suit land

Findings of Appellate Court with regard to relinquishment of share in suit property by one of the plaintiffs were based on proper appreciation of evidence

Judgments of Courts below were silent with regard to entitlement of female plaintiffs

Relinquishment on behalf of one of the plaintiffs of his share in the legacy of predecessor did not affect the legal shares of female plaintiffs

Female plaintiffs could not be deprived of their rights in the legacy of their predecessor as they had not relinquished their shares or received consideration

Question of limitation did not come in the way of female plaintiffs as they had been deprived of their shares in the inheritance

Possession of co-owners i.e. brothers should be deemed to be joint possession of the parties

Female plaintiffs had recurring cause of action to challenge wrong entries in the revenue record

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were modified and preliminary decree was passed in favour of female plaintiffs

Revision was disposed of accordingly.

2020 CLC 1058 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art.100Relinquishment deedFraudDocumentProof ofProcedurePrinciples of estoppel, acquiescence and limitationApplicabilityContention of plaintiffs was that they were owners of suit property and impugned relinquishment deed was based on fraudSuit was dismissed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court decreed the sameValidityDefendants were in continuous possession on the suit property

Relinquishment deed was a registered document which had been acted upon and same had attained a status of a public document

Plaintiffs were supposed to prove their stance through confidence inspiring evidence which they had failed to prove

Mere denial of plaintiffs was not sufficient for setting aside of relinquishment deed, in circumstances

Relinquishment deed was thirty years old registered document and presumption of correctness and due execution was attached to the same

Plaintiffs had alleged fraud and they were bound to establish the same through convincing evidence

Evidence of plaintiffs was silent with regard to fraud

Plaintiffs had failed to prove alleged plea of fraud, in circumstances

Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs never challenged the validity of relinquishment deed during his life time

Present suit had been filed after thirty years of the registration of relinquishment deed

Principles of acquiescence, estoppel and limitation were applicable in the matter

Beneficiary of a document was to prove its validity if plaintiff had succeeded to discharge the initial burden of proof

Plaintiffs had failed to prove their stance through convincing evidence

Plaintiffs had failed to discharge initial burden of proof in accordance with law

Plaintiffs could not get any benefit from the shortcomings of defendants if any

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and those of Trial Court were restored

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

2017 YLRN 124 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 42Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79Suit for declarationInheritanceRelinquishment deedProof

Contention of plaintiff was that she was owner in possession of her share in the suit property whereas defendants contended that plaintiff had relinquished her ownership rights

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Stance of defendants taken in written statement as well as statements on oath had not been proved on record

Defendants had failed to prove the payment of consideration amount to the plaintiff of her share and execution of relinquishment deed

Judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence

Plaintiff was entitled to her shari share

Share of plaintiff had been established on record

High Court passed preliminary decree for partition to save the parties from the other round of litigation

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were set aside and suit was decreed to the extent of shari share of plaintiff

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

2016 YLRN 132 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 23Contract against public policyRelinquishment deedScopeRelinquishment deed was prepared for return of suit property in favour of original seller of the sameValidityRelinquishment deed had not been proved to be a valid registered deedContract contrary to public policy defeating provisions of law would not be lawfulSuit property was transferred in favour of plaintiffs through registered sale-deedTransfer of suit property was intended through the impugned relinquishment deed in favour of sellerPerson could relinquish a right which was yet to be transferred in his favour

Instrument of relinquishment deed could not be used for transfer of right of a person relinquishing the right in favour of other side

Impugned relinquishment deed had no value in the eye of law

Relinquishment deed could not be used as an instrument to transfer the rights of one party in favour of other party

Findings recorded by the Courts below were against law

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were set aide and suit of plaintiffs was decreed

Revision was allowed in circumstances.