Suit for declaration and permanent injunction

The claim on the basis of S.43 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 ('the Act 1882') can only be justified on proof of payment of consideration; which important element of consideration was not proved with the required degree in the present case

Equity favours the claimant who has paid the price whereas, in the present case, the bargain, genuineness of revenue record and consideration remained disputed

Section 43 of the Act 1882 incorporates the doctrine known as feeding of estoppel

Petitioners/ plaintiffs failed to establish from the record that any payment was made by them

Thus, in the absence of proof of excess payment, it would be inequitable, unfair and unjust that the relief sought by the petitioners/ plaintiffs be granted

Revision, filed by plaintiffs, was dismissed.

Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction pleading that he was ancestral owner in possession of the suit property and the defendants had no right whatsoever to interfere in the same or claim their title over it

Defendants contested the suit by filing written statement

Trial Court dismissed the suit and appeal also failed

Validity

Record showed that plaintiff claimed that he was the ancestral owner in possession of the subject property comprising of Shamilat and in that regard, he relied upon two deeds

As such, he was duty bound to prove execution of those two documents through cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence as under Art. 17 read with Art. 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, whenever a document is reduced into writing, then in order to use it in evidence, the beneficiary has to produce at least two marginal witnesses

As the plaintiff, predecessor in title of the petitioners, had not been able to produce marginal witnesses of the two deeds, therefore, the same could not be termed as proved documents

So far as contention of predecessor in title of the petitioners that the subject property, being Shamilat, was part of his cultivable property was concerned, his own evidence did not support his contention as he, in his examination-in-chief, had taken a new plea by stating that the subject property was his ancestral property, which had been given to his father by his grandfather vide a deed and thereafter, it came to his share through partition vide partition deed

Such fact had never been asserted by predecessor in title of the petitioners in his plaint, therefore, no issue was framed in that regard

Plaintiff disclosed such fact for the first time while appearing in Court as witness, as such, under the law the statement made by him in the Court could not be considered at all

Plaintiff had to bring on record sufficient evidence to knock out the defendants as every civil case is to be decided on the principle of preponderance of evidence, which was lacking in the subject case

Though the documents relied upon by predecessor in title of the petitioners was of thirty years old but presumption as to its genuineness could not be drawn as the same had not been produced from proper custody rather produced by predecessor in title of the petitioner himself, despite being not proved, as he had also not produced its marginal witnesses

Trial Court coupled with the appellate Court had arrived at the just conclusion of the matter in issue, as such, the impugned concurrent findings of the Courts below did not need any interference

Revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

Respondents / defendants failed to establish by leading unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence that the possession of the suit- property was delivered in pursuance of the disputed sale mutations, rather it was admitted and established fact on record that the possession was with them in pursuance of purported pledge mutation and not being owner of the suit Land

Said fact was also an admitted one that one of the respondents (deceased) was a Patwari of the area, so if for the sake of arguments it was admitted that the respondents were in possession of the suit property, it could not be ruled out that the said respondent(Patwari) managed the entry of possession in Khasra Girdawri against the physical possession at spot

Thus, the disputed sale mutations in favour of the respondents could be result of collusion with the revenue staff

High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the both the Courts below , consequently the suit instituted by the petitioners stood decreed as prayed for

Revision filed by the plaintiffs was allowed, in circumstances .

Mutation entry is not a document of title, and of itself does not confer any right, title or interest, and the burden of proof lies upon the person, in whose favour it was attested to establish the validity and genuineness of transfer in his/her favour

If the foundation is illegal and defective then entire structure built on such foundation would have no value in the eyes of law

Once a mutation is challenged the party that relies on such mutation(s) is bound to revert to the original transaction and to prove such original transaction which resulted in the entry or attestation of such mutation(s) in dispute

However, in the present case, the respondents / defendants had failed to plead and prove the time, date, place and names of witnesses in whose presence such original transaction of sale took place inter se the petitioners/ plaintiffs and respondents / defendants because the written statement of the respondents was silent in said regard

Respondents failed to establish their case that the disputed mutations were sanctioned legally

High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the both the Courts below , consequently the suit instituted by the petitioners stood decreed as prayed for

Revision filed by the plaintiffs was allowed, in circumstances .

Both the Courts below failed to adjudicate upon the matter in hand by appreciating law on the subject; thus, the Courts below misread and non-read evidence of the parties and when the position was as such, High Court was vested with ample jurisdiction and authority to undo the concurrent findings in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the both the Courts below , consequently the suit instituted by the petitioners stood decreed as prayed for

Revision filed by the plaintiffs was allowed, in circumstances .

Objection was raised by the defendant that High Court at "K" had no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter in issue since the cause of action arose at place "S"

Contention of the plaintiff was that since part of cause of action arose at "K" and the amendment in the rules took place at "K", therefore, suit was maintainable at "K" under S.20(c), C.P.C.

Validity

High Court ruled that if the contention of the plaintiff was to be accepted, then all suits emanating anywhere in Sindh seeking a declaration in respect of a provincial statute could be brought to "K" from where the statutes were usually notified

Suits emanating anywhere in Sindh seeking a declaration in respect of a federal statute could also be filed at Islamabad, which was not the intent of S.20(c), C.P.C.

Word "arises" in S. 20(c), C.P.C. is significant for the reason that when a statute comes into operation, it is for all the territory for which it is enacted, and therefore, the place of its enactment or notification would not figure into S.20(c), C.P.C. as the place where the cause of action "arises"

In such cases what is intended by S.20(c) is the place where the statute affects the rights of the plaintiff so as to give him a cause of action to sue, which in the case in hand was "S" and no part of the cause of action arose at "K"

Test of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution is different and does not govern civil suits and S.120, C.P.C. is not relevant there

In the circumstances, Civil Court at "S" had territorial jurisdiction under S.20(c), C.P.C. to entertain the suit, therefore, plaint was returned to the plaintiff under O.VII, R.10, C.P.C.

Plaintiff had challenged the public notice given by defendant No. 1 (Sui Southern Gas Company Limited) through defendant No. 2 for recruitment of professionals in senior management positions

Plaintiff (employee of defendant No.1) was not found fit for promotion

Validity

Merely because rules were non-statutory and relationship of defendant No.1 and plaintiff was that of master and servant, it did not mean that plaintiff and such other employees were remediless

If the service regulations were violated or the established policies were deviated from to deprive an employee, from his career progression, then the suit was maintainable, because S. 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was also applicable to Defendant No.1, and while framing the policies for the employees, they had to act fairly, justly and reasonably

Posts advertised required specialized qualifications

In order to run the organization in an efficient and viable manner, it was not necessary that a senior management position was always filled up internally through promotion, especially when the present positions were on contract and not regular posts

Defendant No.1 and any other organization, especially of public sector, could hire the services of well qualified and reputed professionals in order to operate efficiently

Secondly, an employee could be considered for such specialized posts, only if he had the requisite qualifications

Merely because he fulfilled the criteria of length of service or any other general criteria for promotion did not itself create a vested right in favour of plaintiff

Defendant No.1 was not bound to promote an employee to the next higher grade if that post required specialized qualifications

Present qualification of the plaintiff should have direct nexus with the posts advertised

Record showed that plaintiff had done B.E. Electronics, thus, obviously he could not be considered for the post of Senior General Manager-Information Technology, which in the present times, was one of the most important posts in any organization; rather, sine qua non for viable operation of an organization, including defendant No.1.

Similarly, plaintiff was in the last year considered for the position of HSEQA and was not found fit and nothing was placed on record that what further qualification the plaintiff had acquired to become eligible for the said position

As far as the third post of Senior General Manager, Procurement and Inventory Management, was concerned, it was sole discretion of Defendant No.1 to consider any of the employees including plaintiff, if the defendant No.1 was unable to hire/induct a suitable candidate externally

In the previous and present Service Regulations, H.R. Manual and Employment Policies, nothing had been shown, which could be termed as violative of any principle of law or statutory provisions

Moreover, it was discretion of the board of defendant No.1 to modify, amend, replace and frame policies in accordance with the present day requirement

Suit was dismissed accordingly.

In the Nikah Nama, it was clearly mentioned that the suit property was given to the respondent-widow by her husband in lieu of dower

Husband was owner of the suit property and there was no bar on him to transfer the property to his wife in his lifetime

Land in question was in exclusive ownership of the respondent-widow and she used to receive Ijjara from the tenants

Two tenants of the respondent appeared in the witness box and stated on oath that they were cultivating the suit property for the last 40 years on behalf of the respondent; they also admitted that they were paying Ijjara to the respondent

Respondent was a Parda Nashin Lady and under no circumstances it can be presumed that she had the knowledge that after the Nikah and the Nikah Nama, the registration as well as the incorporation in the revenue record was mandatory

Under the bona fide belief, in our part of the world, the presumption of completeness of transaction, after the execution of Nikah Nama is there and since the Ijjara was being received by her, as such, she was under bona fide belief that during the lifetime of her husband as well as after his death, the transaction was complete and she was the owner of the property in question

Suit of respondent had been rightly decreed

Appeal was dismissed.

Appellant (alleged vendee) claimed that he purchased the suit property from the respondent, who was the General Power of Attorney (GPA) of the plaintiffs (two illiterate housewives)

Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the appellant stating therein that they were the owners in possession of the suit property and that they never sold the suit property to the appellant

[Per Ayesha A. Malik [Majority view]: Appellant admitted that plaintiffs were illiterate housewives and resided in the same vicinity; he also admitted that respondent was a property agent and that he had purchased other properties from him in the past

Appellant did not produce any evidence of the sale in his favour as there were no witnesses to the sale or payment of the sale consideration nor does the revenue record detiail the sale and payment of sale consideration in the presence of the revenue officer

Furthermore, the appellant relied on a mutation being a copy of the Register Dakhal Kharaj Mahaal to show that the suit property was sold to him by respondent

Said mutation providesd that there was an oral sale through the GPA but gave no details of the oral sale and simply mentioned the sale consideration of Rs. 148,000/

Register Dakhal Kharaj Mahaal was an incomplete document as the report mentioned in Column No.14 was not relied upon by the appellant to establish the oral sale in his favour

There was also no report by the revenue officer to verify the oral sale in favour of the appellant

Furthermore, the mere fact that the GPA was executed did not establish the sale in favour of the appellant, as he was required to provide independent evidence of the oral sale in his favour

Importantly the GPA did not appear in Court, nor did any witness to establish the oral sale

Since the appellant and respondent were known to each other and had been doing business together, therefore, the element of the fraud with the plaintiffs could not be ruled out

In this case, there was no independent advice given to Pardanashin women

Moreover, respondent being the GPA holder did not inform plaintiffs of the sale in favour of the appellant

Furthermore, even though the appellant resided in the same village, he made no effort to ascertain whether plaintiffs intended to sell their property through the GPA to him

Such fact became relevant when seen in the context of the evidence with reference to the sale consideration as plaintiffs entered into an agreement to sell the suit property for Rs.1,600,000/ - whereas the appellant purchased the property from the GPA for Rs.148,000/

Given that respondent executed the agreement to sell with plaintiffs and agreed to pay them Rs.1,600,000 / - for the sale of the property, he betrayed their trust, did not complete the sale as agreed under the agreement to sell and instead sold the suit property to the appellant through an oral sale

High Court had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs]

[Per Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J [Minority view]: Agreement between the plaintiffs and the respondent was evidence of the fact that they sold the disputed property to the respondent, followed by which a registered power of attorney was executed in his favour

Respondent exercised his authority by alienating the disputed property in the name of the appellant through the disputed mutation

Factum of this sale and the number of the disputed mutation was already in the knowledge of plaintiffs, who subsequently incorporated the same into their agreement with the respondent, with their free will and consent

Plaintiffs' had a grievance against the respondent only as far as the outstanding amount was concerned

Appellant in his written statement and in his statement recorded before the Trial Court contended that he had paid an amount of Rs.1,600,000/- as consideration for the disputed property to respondent, whereafter the property was transferred to him through the disputed mutation

It was the case of plaintiffs that respondent paid them an amount of Rs.100,000/- each and delivered the cheque for the remainder amount which was subsequently dishonoured

Such fact further supported the contention of the appellant that he had already paid the entirety of the consideration amount to respondent

Besides, the stance of the appellant was neither challenged by plaintiffs nor was it contested by respondent

Moreover, the appellant was not party to the agreements between the plaintiffs and the respondent, as such, was not bound by their terms and conditions

In such circumstances, the present suit based on the agreements was not maintainable against the appellant

Respondent was proceeded against ex parte by the Trial Court and also did not appear before the High Court as well as the Supreme Court

Such non-appearance on behalf of respondent suggested mala fide on his part and his collusion with the plaintiffs, as he was not only their authorized attorney, but also their nephew

Plaintiffs had failed to make out a case against the appellant who was a bona fide purchaser

Suit of plaintiffs was rightly dismissed by the Trial and Appellate Courts

Appeal was dismissed.

Plaintiffs claimed that the suit land was allotted to their predecessor by the Deputy Commissioner but the defendants were illegally interfering in their possession

Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently dismissed the suit

Validity

Burden was on the shoulders of plaintiffs to prove that the allotment order was an official document

Mere assertion or placing the document with plaint could not amount to admissibility of document

Plaintiffs had not filed application before the court for calling the record from the office of Deputy Commissioner

When the party without any reason withheld the best evidence the presumption under Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 could be drawn against him/them

Testimonies of plaintiffs' witnesses were contradictory with each other

None of the witnesses stated year and month of alleged allotment in favour of the plaintiffs

Plaintiffs had failed to point out any misreading, non-reading of evidence, any illegality or irregularity in the judgments of the courts below

Revision petition was dismissed.

Petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents claiming therein that they were owners in possession of suit property but the respondents were interfering in their possession

Claim of respondents was that they were in possession of a part of property since the time of their ancestors; that they were regularly paying cesses of property and that their rights were protected under the Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978

Trial Court dismissed the suit

Appellate Court declared the petitioners as owner of property and respondents as possessor of property in question

Validity

Oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioners was not taken into consideration by the Trial Court

Respondents had produced a private decision/document, which was not worth of a proof as per the law, but the decision was given outright weightage

Such evidence had no legal sanctity as per the law; thus as per S. 2(9) of C.P.C., the decision of Trial Court could not be termed as a "judgment" neither the mandatory provision of O.XX, R.5, C.P.C. was complied with by the Trial Court

Report prepared by revenue official was neither taken into consideration nor any findings were recorded in that respect

Appellate Court had not discharged its judicial responsibilities as per the provision of law

Revision petition was accepted and the matter was remanded to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and decision on merits.

Case of defendants was that the suit property was in fact purchased by their father and that the name of plaintiff appeared in the sale deed as Benamidar

Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently decreed the suit

Validity

Plaintiff had established that he had paid the sale consideration whereas the defendants' evidence was based on hearsay

Defendants had not even alleged any motive what to speak of proving the same that what consideration prompted their common predecessor to purchase the property in the name of the plaintiff

Plaintiff had prima facie proved that he was in possession of the suit property

Financial position of the plaintiff had not been challenged by the defendants

Two courts below had concurrently recorded their findings of facts and law as against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff, which High Court found as perfectly in accordance with available evidence of the parties

Revision petition was dismissed.

Appellant / defendant, despite successive adjournments and specific order (of last opportunity), failed to file written statement and reply to the application for temporary injunction

Tribunal struck off the right of the appellant/defendant to the extent of filing written statement and reply to the application for temporary injunction

Tribunal confirmed the status quo order in favour of the plaintiff/respondent

Held, that sufficient opportunities for compliance of Court's direction to file written statement and reply were granted which were not availed, thus on merit no justification or sufficient cause was shown by the appellant/defendant for setting aside the impugned order

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondents filed a suit seeking a declaration as to their ownership of the suit land and alleged that the order by the Board of Revenue whereby it had cancelled the allotment in favour of original allottee, was void ab initio and requested for a permanent injunction as consequential relief

Trial Court decreed the suit whereas Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by petitioners

Validity

Collector's order had confirmed the original allottee's proprietary rights through a registered deed

Original allottee had subsequently sold the land to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, who had transferred it to the present respondents

Despite occupying the land since 1993, the revenue authorities had neither issued any notice nor raised any objection

Revenue authorities had failed to provide evidence that the original allottee was not entitled to the land or that he had violated the scheme's conditions

Original allottee had complied with the scheme, paid the required amount, and received Patta Malkiyat for the original allotted land

Revenue authorities had initiated proceedings against the original allottee but had not involved the present respondents

Provincial Government had no right to claim ownership

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 stipulates that reviews of mutations or revenue records should be done within a specific time and if any fraud is detected it can only be challenged through a civil suit

Revenue authorities had no right to take action when the revenue record showed a registered sale deed and the names of the new owners

No notice was issued to the new owners during the proceedings

Board of Revenue's order, after the issuance of Patta Malkiyat and registration of the conveyance deed, was unlawful

Revision petition was dismissed.

Respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction wherein proprietary rights were claimed against the suit property, based on policy decision, offering land through sale by private treaty, to unauthorized occupants

Respondent alleged that he sought purchase of land under the policy decision but before any such sale was made, rights in land were transferred in favour of Punjab Housing Department

Trial Court dismissed the suit, however, Appellate Court decreed the same

Validity

Respondent had not established that payments were made as per conditions of the policy decision

Mere issuance of policy, when subjected to the fulfillment of terms and conditions, no enforceable right could be claimed

No legal basis was available for filing a suit for declaration, in the absence of any enforceable right

Respondent had filed application for seeking proprietary rights on the same day when the suit was filed

No right qua property was established, which entitled him from seeking decree of declaration in terms of S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877

Appellate Court had committed gross errors of law and misconstrued the evidence

Revision petition was allowed, judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court was set aside and that of Trial Court was affirmed.

Plaintiffs were engaged in business of GPS vehicle tracking services and were aggrieved of directions issued by Pakistan State Oil to oil tankers on the basis of Circular dated 30-11-2020 to seek GPS tracking facilities from defendant companies

Validity

Plaintiff companies were aware of Logistic Circular dated 30-11-2020, but neither challenged that Circular nor sought any relief in relation to it

If a party omitted to include a claim or relief, then such claim or relief would be deemed to be relinquished and the party would be barred from reagitating the same under O.II R.2, C.P.C.

Plaintiffs had relinquished their claim in relation to the Logistic Circular dated 30-11-2020, hence were barred from raising any claim in relation to the Logistic Circular in the suit

Pakistan State Oil did not own any of the trucks or tankers but entered into contract with various contractors who provided their vehicles for logistic purposes

Cost of tracking services was borne by the contractors and not by Pakistan State Oil

Tracking companies such as plaintiffs or defendants were paid for their services by the contractors and not by Pakistan State Oil

Plaintiffs had no good prima facie case and even no irreparable loss could be caused to them if relief sought in the injunction application was refused

Balance of inconvenience did not lie in injunction application of plaintiffs

High Court declined to grant interim injunction to plaintiffs

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Claim of the plaintiff was that the suit-land was purchased jointly by him and the defendant but he (defendant) had clandestinely transferred joint-property in his name in connivance with Revenue Officers

Suit was concurrently dismissed

Contention of the petitioner/plaintiff was that he had produced five witnesses who had orally proved his claim

Validity

Record revealed that the petitioner/plaintiff had not produced any valid and cogent documentary evidence in the Trial Court, however, he had produced five oral witnesses

Statements of witnesses produced by the petitioner/plaintiff showed that all the witnesses had failed to substantiate his claim , rather one of the them, who was original owner of the suit-property, had supported the contention of the respondent/defendant stating that he (petitioner) had sold out the suit-property to the respondent/defendant

Said witness (original owner) had also admitted in cross-examination that the mutation-in-question had been attested in favour of the respondent in his presence

Relevant Jamabandi of suit-land had been prepared in the name of the respondent/defendant, which had not been challenged by the petitioner/plaintiff in the plaint

Petitioner/plaintiff had filed the suit after 25 years of attestation of mutation-in-question, hence his suit was time-barred

Both the Courts below had properly exercised the jurisdiction vested in them

Chief Court maintained the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Record revealed that the respondents/plaintiffs had produced three witnesses who were residents of the village, the petitioners/defendants hailed from

Said witnesses had unequivocally stated in their statements that the respondents / plaintiffs were owners of suit-property and even they had taken stones from suit-property with their (respondents') permission for construction of different projects; and the petitioners/defendants had not been able to shatter said statements in the cross-examination

On the contrary, the petitioners/ defendants had failed to produce impartial reliable oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their contentions raised in their statements

Chief Court maintained the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below

Revision was dismissed , in circumstances.

Plea of respondents that erection of pillars and construction of the wall in front of their land would not only block the view and exposure of their land but also cause hindrance in approaching the main road, and that as a consequence the land of the respondents would become valueless

High Court in its revisional jurisdiction gave directions that the Provincial Government shall provide a passage of 20 ft. to the respondents excluding the passage of Rajbah for transportation and exposure

Legality

Land whereupon the Provincial Government was constructing pillars and erecting a wall was owned by the Provincial Government having acquired the same from the predecessors of the respondents

Such predecessors had challenged the assessment of price made by the Land Acquisition Collector upto the Supreme Court and the matter stood concluded, and at no stage was any other relief sought

Respondents were aware of the modes of access to their land which had not in any manner been blocked by the Provincial Government

Just by reason of fact that the respondents had decided to construct a commercial building/plaza/ market on their land did not create any additional rights in their favour

Land in question was agricultural in nature and no commercial building/shopping plaza or offices, etc existed on the same

When no such commercial activity was being undertaken on the land of the respondents, there was no ground for them to raise an objection relating to blockage of view of the same

Further, the Provincial Government, which was the owner of the land abutting the road, could not be stopped from utilizing it in a manner for which it was specifically acquired and the Court could not carve out a passage in the land of another person specially when no right of easement was claimed or asserted

Respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving the fact that the passage of the respondents' land was being closed by raising pillars and a wall on the land acquired by the Provincial Government, and that such construction was being illegally done and with mala fides to block access to the land of the respondents

Examination of real time .photographs of the area and other related documents on record showed that the land of the respondents was at a considerable distance from the main road, and by no definition of the term did the land of the respondents abut the road

Substantial distance existed between the land of the respondents and the boundary of the land belonging to Provincial Government where pillars had been installed and a boundary wall was being constructed

Further, there was a passage besides the canal through which the land of the respondents could be accessed

High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing a direction that the Provincial Government shall provide a 20 ft. passage to the respondents excluding the passage of Rajbah for transportation and exposure to the main road

Such a direction was neither supported by law nor did it fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court as a revisional Court

Impugned judgment of the High Court to the extent of such direction was not sustainable and was accordingly set aside

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and allowed.

Step mother depriving her daughters from the estate of their father through a purported Meharnama (dower deed) and a Razinama (compromise)

Held, that since the step mother claimed that her husband 'H' had given away all his property to her as mehr (dower) and she and her two children based this claim on a Meharnama, they had to prove that the Meharnama was executed by 'H'

Admittedly, the two persons shown to be the attesting witnesses to the Meharnama purportedly did so when they were minors, and no explanation was offered why one was only 7 years old, and the other 16 years were called to attest it

Such fact raised serious doubts about the authenticity of the Meharnama and it appeared that it was manufactured to deprive the legal heirs of 'H' from their inheritance

Significantly, the Meharnama only surfaced after the filing of the suit

Meharnama also did not find mention in the subsequent Razinama which was purportedly prepared after a Jirgah was held

If the Meharnama did exist it would have been natural to show it to the members of the Jirgah who would have mentioned it in the Razinama

Burden to establish the execution by 'H' of the Meharnama lay upon the step mother and her children (respondents), who had failed to establish its execution, therefore, the Meharnama could not be relied upon and used to deprive 'H's' heirs from their inheritance

Furthermore out of the 20 signatories to the Razinama only one of them was produced to testify and his testimony did not accord with the contents of the Razinama

Razinama purported to be a compromise amongst the heirs of the 'H' but it was not signed by even a single one of his heirs

Even if for arguments sake it was accepted that a Jirgah was convened and decided matters relating to inheritance a Jirgah could not substitute its decision to what was prescribed in the Holy Qur'an

Since execution of the Meharnama and Razinama was not established, consequently, the suit filed by the appellants (daughters), who had been deprived of their inheritance, was decreed by holding that the entire estate of 'H' shall be distributed amongst his legal heirs in accordance with the shares as determined by Islamic Shari'ah

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner filed second suit during pendency of first suit and then withdrew the first suit by making statement that he had filed another suit

Respondents filed application for rejection of plaint on ground of maintainability

Plaint was rejected by Trial Court on ground that second suit was barred under O. XXIII, R. 1, C.P.C.

Appellate Court dismissed appeal

Validity

Bar of O. XXIII, R. 1, C.P.C. would apply to a suit instituted after withdrawal/abandonment of previous suit

Where a suit is already pending before the institution of fresh/ new suit and previous suit is withdrawn , the provision of O. XXIII, R. 1, C.P.C. would not be applicable

Said law referred to permission to withdraw a suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit after the first had been withdrawn

Order XXIII, R. 1, C.P.C. could not be read so as to bar a suit which had already been instituted before the other suit had been abandoned or dismissed

Courts below illegally passed the impugned order and judgment against the record and misapplication of law which are not sustainable and liable to be set-aside

Revision petition was allowed accordingly and the suit was held to be deemed pending before Trial Court.

Petitioner's contentions were that the suit property was allotted to him by drawing lot on 24/05/1971 by the Assistant Commissioner under 15 Years Lease Scheme; that Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine without discussing/giving findings on facts; that the principle of res judicata was not attracted

Validity

Respondent's review petition against said allotment was accepted by Member Board of Revenue on 10/04/1975

Petitioner challenged the same through Constitutional petition which was dismissed in limine on 21/11/1975

Order of High Court was not challenged further and the same had attained finality

Petitioner challenged order dated 10/04/1975 through the suit, which was concurrently dismissed on ground of res judicata

Order of High Court dated 21/11/1975 was final, binding on sub ordinate courts and the same could not be re-agitated before Civil Court

Contention that order in limine would not operate as res judicata carried no weight

Said order of the High Court was in constitutional petition and not in a suit, therefore S.11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 did not apply; but general principles of res judicata would apply

One should not be vexed twice by one/same cause

Review was allowed and allotment was cancelled mainly on the ground that alleged allotment was made after ceaser of the scheme

No illegality, irregularity and mis-reading/non-reading of evidence was found on the part of lower Courts

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and injunction against their father and provincial government contending therein that they were owners of suit land by virtue of gift made in their favour by their father

Plaintiffs' father admitted the claim of plaintiffs in respect of purported gift made by him, whereas the Mukhtiarkar denied the claim of plaintiffs by arguing that it was a collusive suit to avoid the operation of Land Reforms Regulations, 1972

Trial Court dismissed the suit whereas Appellate Court decreed the same

Validity

High Court observed that the plaintiffs' own case according to the pleadings was that the gift was made by their father on 20-02-1967 and that they had approached the revenue authorities for mutation of the khata in their names, but it was declined

Plaintiffs had not been able to prove in the evidence that as to when such request of recording the effect of the gift was made by them and refused by the concerned revenue authorities

If the case of plaintiffs' father was to the effect that it was refused, then he in his lifetime ought to have taken recourse to the legal remedy either by way of an appeal under S.161 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, or by way of a civil suit under S.9 of C.P.C.

Plaintiffs had filed their suit on 18-07-1974 and counting from 19-05-1967 i.e. after 03 months from the date of the purported gift, the suit was beyond limitation of 06 years as provided under Art.120 of Limitation Act, 1908

Suit of the plaintiffs was hopelessly time barred and such limitation was never condoned nor it could have been, and therefore, the Appellate Court had seriously erred in deciding the issue in favour of the plaintiffs by setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court

Revision application was allowed, in circumstances.

Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and injunction against their father and provincial government contending therein that they were owners of suit land by virtue of gift made in their favour by their father

Plaintiffs' father admitted the claim of plaintiffs in respect of purported gift made by him, whereas the Mukhtiarkar denied the claim of plaintiffs by arguing that it was a collusive suit to avoid the operation of Land Reforms Regulations, 1972

Trial Court dismissed the suit whereas Appellate Court decreed the suit

Validity

Appellate Court had placed reliance on an order of Land Commissioner dated: 20-09-1972 for coming to the conclusion that a valid gift was made as claimed

Order of the Land Commissioner was outcome of some proceedings initiated against the father of plaintiffs, who according to the case before the Land Commissioner had failed to disclose various land(s) (Suit Land included) in his declaration as required to be filed by him after promulgation of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972

Father of plaintiffs was confronted, to which his stance was that he had gifted those properties to his sons and grandson

Such was in that context that the said order of Land Commissioner was passed

Land Commissioner had went on to hold that on verification of the revenue record, there was no record of such gift statement in the Book of Statement

Judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court was set aside and that of Trial Court was restored

Revision application was allowed, in circumstances.

Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction on the basis of an agreement and claimed that predecessors of defendants had alienated their whole land

Validity

Agreement was a thirty years old document hence, under Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 same had got presumption of truth until and unless otherwise proved

Name of predecessor of plaintiffs was entered in the revenue record as possessor of the land being vendee from 1950 till 1984, thus, the agreement was supported by the documentary evidence

Documentary evidence could be rebutted only through documentary evidence or through concrete, tangible and credible evidence of an extraordinary nature

Defendants had failed to rebut the documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs

Plaintiffs were in possession of the land till date

Bare reading of the agreement depicted that the time period was not the essence of the agreement

Cause of action had arose in favour of the plaintiffs when the defendants had interfered into their possession and refused to get registered the sale deed, hence, the suit was within limitation

Appeal filed by plaintiffs was accepted, judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court were set aside and that of Trial Court were restored, in circumstances.

Where plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and possession on the basis of an agreement to sell, High Court observed that an agreement to sell did not create any right in favour of the vendee except to obtain another document i.e. sale deed, so the suit was liable to be dismissed.

Plaintiffs sought temporary injunction and right to graze their cattle in the disputed pasture till decision in the suit

Validity

Plaintiffs by dint of an agreement, allegedly executed between the then Raja and father of the plaintiffs, were claiming rights of grazing of their cattle in the suit pasture

Plaintiffs had filed an unattested copy of the agreement which was neither obtained from the proper office/Custodian of said agreement viz. A.C. office, the then Assistant Political Agent Office nor from record room of D.C., the then Political Agent Office, thus veracity of the document was highly doubtful

Residents of the village in which the pasture existed were not party to agreement, thus, the agreement was not binding on them

Government had also cancelled the so-called agreement

Prima facie arguable case did not lie in favour of the plaintiffs and balance of convenience was also not in their favour

Plaintiffs would not suffer irreparable loss if temporary injunction was not granted as they had their own pastures in their relevant district

Revision petition was dismissed.

Installments delayed by purchaser due to non-removal of high-tension wires from the plot by Capital Development Authority (CDA)

Installments were re-scheduled on orders of the Federal Ombudsperson

Delayed payment charges were imposed on purchaser by CDA once all installments were paid

Plea of purchaser/respondent that he did not pay the installments within time as according to clause 6 of the lease agreement the possession of the plot free from all encumbrances and ready for construction was to be delivered to him within a period of one month i.e. on or before 14-01-1988 but the same was delivered on 27-02-1988 without removing high tension wires and electric poles, which were passing through all the plots of that area

Validity

Clause 6 of the lease agreement/allotment letter did not state that the CDA was bound to deliver the possession after removing of high tension wires etc.

However, it appears from the noting portion of the CDA that Town Planner-1 vide a memo had informed that an overhead electric line was encroaching the plots in the area but the same was removed and the possession was handed over to the respondent without any further encroachment

Such claim found force from the possession letter, wherein the respondent had himself admitted that there was no encroachment on his plot

Respondent has himself signed the possession letter and certified that he had seen his plot and all its corners, there was no encroachment on his plot, and no service line was passing within his plot

Although possession was delivered to him late but the delay was only of 40 to 45 days

Respondent had to pay the first installment by 01-03-1988 but despite the fact that possession was handed over to him on 27-02-1988, he did not pay the same

Appellant/CDA issued him a letter dated 08-04-1989 to make the payment but instead of complying, he filed a suit for permanent injunction, which prima facie shows that he wanted to avoid payment accrued towards him

Purpose of the respondent was to evade payment while buying time

Proceedings before the civil court continued for a period of five years and when the respondent saw that he would not be able to get a favourable order, he withdrew the suit and approached the Federal Ombudsman

Respondent was bound to pay the delayed payment charges

Appeal was allowed.

Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming therein that they were owner of certain agricultural land in specific Khasra number/survey number; that they were in possession over specific killa numbers; that the respondent had no right to pose as owner in possession of specific killa numbers and that the mutation entered in the revenue record whereby respondent had purchased the property ought to be cancelled

Respondent, in his application under O. VII, R.11, C.P.C., claimed that the respective ownership and possession of petitioners and the respondent in joint khata was admittedly distinct

Courts below concurrently dismissed the suit

Contention of petitioners was that the relief of partition was also sought in the plaint, as such, the suit could not have been dismissed

Validity

Body of the plaint did not say anything about seeking partition and the basic ingredients of the suit for partition were conspicuously missing

Respective properties of the petitioners and the respondent were separate and distinct in terms of their ownership and possession in joint holding along with other co-sharers subject to partition in accordance with law

Courts below had rightly concluded that there was no dispute between the petitioners and the respondent that required adjudication in a regular trial

Revision petition was dismissed.

Suit was not instituted by the plaintiff himself , instead by his relative, after obtaining his signatures on the plaint

Maintainability

Oral examination of the party or companion of party

Scope and effect

Held, that person (litigant) himself was to verify the pleadings on oath or on solemn affirmation under R.15, O.VI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as well as under the High Court Rules and Orders

Petitioner/ plaintiff had admitted in his statement recorded under R.2, O.X of C.P.C, while appearing before the Trial Court, that his relative had instituted the suit after obtaining his signatures

Petitioner neither dictated the plaint nor imparted facts of the case to his counsel

Petitioner's counsel had not obtained his signatures on the plaint as well as under verification statement after reading out contents of the plaint

Alleged verification, if any, made by the petitioner on the plaint, admittedly, was without knowing the contents of the plaint

Appellate Court had rightly observed that when plaintiff had admitted before the Court of law that his relative got instituted the suit by obtaining his signature and that he had no knowledge about contents of the case then he could not adduce/record his evidence properly as he was not acquainted with the facts of the case

Verification made by the plaintiff was also not as per requirement of law

Both the Courts below had rightly exercised their vested jurisdiction by holding that the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both Courts below

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Applicants assailed the rejection of their plaints in suits for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of their respective properties

Applicants had filed an application for extension of "lease" before the Karachi Port Trust and was declined, followed by issuance of notice of eviction, which led to filing of suits

Trial Court rejected the plaints on the ground that suits were barred under S. 87 of Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886 and that no action could have been initiated against any official of the Karachi Port Trust in respect of anything done or purported to have been done in pursuance of the Act without giving to such person one month's previous notice in writing of the intended suit and of the cause thereof, nor after six months from the accrual of the cause of such suits

Validity

Licences on which respondents were relying had expired somewhere in 2013

Karachi Port Trust, after expiry of alleged licenses, had starting receiving the amount as "lease money"

Margin line between a lease and license was very thin and irrespective of as to what was defined in the documents itself, it was the intention of the parties which could ultimately determine relationship and status

Since rental receipts were issued for a lease period, therefore, notice under S.87 of the Karachi Port Trust Act for eviction could not be read to have been issued in pursuance of the Act as a lessee could not be evicted without due process of law

Such action was not deemed to have been taken or purported to have been taken under the said Act

Trial Court should have commenced the trial and disposed of the lis in accordance with law

Cases were remanded to the Trial Court for decision on merits.

Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants praying that the plaintiff be declared as the absolute owner of the suit property and the defendants be refrained from illegally occupying the suit property or from dispossessing him therefrom or from interfering in his title or possession

Validity

Registered indenture of sub-lease in respect of the suit property in favour of plaintiff showed that the leasehold rights in suit property were granted in favour of the plaintiff for a period of 99 years

High Court observed that such leasehold rights enjoyed by the plaintiff shall remain intact unless the same were transferred to a third party by the plaintiff himself or unless the registered indenture of sub-lease was cancelled by a competent Court

Since the plaintiff never had any intention of transferring his said rights nor had the sub-lease in his favour been cancelled by any Civil Court, the defendants had no right or authority whatsoever to ask or compel the plaintiff to vacate and handover the suit property to them or surrender his sub-lease

Suit was decreed as prayed for.

Appellants filed applications seeking direction to the respondents to restore their possession and grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking coercive action

Single Judge of High Court dismissed the applications on the grounds that it was not possible to give any conclusive finding at that stage as to the exact location of the land and that the grant of mandatory injunction would also tantamount to granting final relief at the interlocutory stage

Validity

Assessment of Single Judge on both scores could not be faulted let alone said to be unreasonable

Decision to grant or refuse an interlocutory injunction was a discretionary exercise and the appellate court must not interfere solely because it would have exercised the discretion differently

Scope of inquiry in exercise of appellate jurisdiction was not to second guess the exercise of judicial discretion but to satisfy itself that such exercise was judicious in terms of being reasonable

Impugned order reflected a well-reasoned approach, which was in consonance with settled principles relating to the issuance of temporary injunctions

Appeal was dismissed.

Application for grant of temporary injunction was allowed, in circumstances.

Respondent filed application before the Additional Deputy Commissioner stating therein that the suit property was allotted to him

Said application was allowed and the entries available in the record of rights in favour of the applicants were cancelled on the premise that all such entries overlapped with the allotment of respondent

Said order was assailed in appeal before Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed

Revision was preferred before the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, was also dismissed

Applicants filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Civil Court and thereafter filed appeal before the District Court

Validity

Legal position reflected that Revenue hierarchy had decided the 'entitlement of subject land'

Findings of facts and law by the two courts below were concurrent and the applicants had failed to point out misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned orders

Findings recorded by the Trial Court affirmed by the Appellate Court were neither perverse nor were the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence

Oral as well as documentary evidence was fully discussed

High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C., declined interference with the findings of the courts below

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming to have purchased suit property from the attorney of defendant

Defendant, prior to the suit, had filed application before the Assistant Commissioner for setting aside the mutation on the ground of fraud in terms of para. 7 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972

Application filed by defendant under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., on the ground that the suit was not maintainable being hit by para. 26 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, was dismissed being pre-mature and it was held that the matter required evidence

Suit was, however, dismissed on an application filed by defendant under S.151, C.P.C., claiming therein that the proceedings had become infructuous as the possession of suit property was taken over on account of proceedings decided by the Land Commissioner and that the suit was hit by para. 26 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972

Appellate Court dismissed the appeal

Validity

Order passed by Land Commissioner was without prejudice to the cases before the various forums between the parties other than under Land Reforms Law

Plaintiffs were not heard being claimants in the matter nor the said order decided the matter of controversy / rights between the parties

Impugned orders were set aside and the suit was restored

Revision petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff filed suit claiming therein that the Forest Department had secretly leased out the suit property to the private defendants; that notice of auction, if any, published in newspaper did not mention details of land showing mala fide intention; and that valuable land of Government was shown as leased out

Trial Court rejected the plaint whereas Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court with directions to frame legal and factual issues in the suit and decide the same on merits

Held, that subject land was a forest land of the Government and the plaintiff and defendant had no vested right or title over the same

Trial Court without allowing the parties to lead their evidence for and against their respective claims had rejected the plaint and had given its findings in favour of the defendants without any evidence and without realizing the fact that the Government interest was involved in the subject suit

Official defendants were not given proper opportunity to file their written statements

Written statement filed by private defendants had given rise to various issues including the issue relating to action of the official defendants being illegal, void and without lawful authority

Impugned order did not call for any interference

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff/petitioner contended that respondents (WAPDA) had no right to install and pass electricity poles (transmission lines)over their land; that due to high transmission electricity lines, the lives of the residents were exposed to immense danger

Respondents (WAPDA) contended that they were only replacing already installed poles/lines with new and innovative form of electricity poles and no risk would be caused to the owners of land due to updated technology

Held that the suit-land was barren and since the year 1984, the electricity poles already existed at the place which the respondent was replacing with new poles

Petitioners had, admittedly, not moved any application for removal of the said(old) poles before any concerned authority since their installation, thus the contention of petitioners regarding installing of altogether new poles on their land was ill-founded

Respondents had placed before the Court photographs of old and new electricity poles, whose comparison showed that the old electricity poles had occupied more space and were smaller in height, whereas new poles were being installed at smaller area having better height , thus the plea of the petitioners, regarding risk, had no force as new poles apparently were of minimum risk to the residents

Record showed that the work of installation was almost complete, therefore, there was no valid ground for grant of interim injunction

Public good overrode individual interest

Electricity had been provided in the locality from the poles-in-question, as such any order from the Courts would have an adverse effect to the residents of the area being a disadvantage to a large number of consumers against few individuals (petitioners)

Respondents (WAPDA) on account of conferment of powers upon it could lawfully erect poles and lay the wires without consent of plaintiff and without permission of the District Magistrate

Balance of convenience was important ingredient to grant relief under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 of the C.P.C which, in the present case, leaned toward residents of area, who were being facilitated with the supply of electricity through the poles-in-question and they would be made to suffer if interim stay be granted

In determining balance of convenience, interest of individual must give way to public interest

Petitioners were unable to satisfy the Court that irreparable loss could be caused to them by replacement of old poles erected since 1984, with new ones, if the application for interim injunction was not granted

Balance of convenience also did not lean in favour of the petitioners, whereas prima facie case was yet to be proved through evidence in the main suit

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below not granting temporary injunction to the petitioners

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and perpetual injunction contending therein that the impugned mutations were incorporated as a sale transaction whereas the suit property was intended to be mortgaged by him

Trial Court decreed the suit whereas Appellate Court dismissed the same

Validity

Beneficiaries of the mutations were the defendants, since title in the suit land was transferred in their favour but as the execution of mutations was not denied by the plaintiff thus burden of proving the sale transaction incorporated in the mutations did not shift on the defendants

Plaintiff was a well educated person and was capable of understanding the contents of the mutations and it did not appeal to reason that the plaintiff, who had fixed his thumb impressions on the mutations, was unaware as to their contents

Plaintiff had not even pleaded as to the type of mortgage that had been executed

Plaintiff had also parted with the possession of the suit land

Judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court was upheld

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Trial Court rejected the plaint holding that suit was time barred but Appellate Court remanded the matter for decision on merits

Validity

Plaintiff had sought declaration to the effect that he was entitled to get his Shari share from the legacy of his deceased father being his legal heir

Present suit being for declaration and possession of suit land, Art. 142 of Limitation Act, 1908 was applicable to the suit of plaintiff, which had prescribed a period of twelve years for filing of such suit

Trial Court had failed to consider nature of suit and had wrongly rejected the plaint

Appellate Court had rightly remanded the case while accepting appeal filed by the plaintiff

No illegality or mis-appreciation of law had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Suit was dismissed against which appeal was filed wherein application for production of additional evidence was moved under O.XIII, Rr.1 & 2, C.P.C. which was dismissed

Validity

Appellate Court in order to enable it to pronounce a judgment might allow any document to be produced or any witness to be examined

Appellants, in the present case, had filed application to produce public documents which were not in their possession at the time of filing of appeal

Documents which the appellants intended to produce before the Appellate Court were public documents and Court had not expressed any doubt with regard to authenticity and genuineness of said documents

Appellate Court had held that provisions of O.XIII, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C. could not be invoked at appellate stage

Mere mentioning a wrong provision of law was not to disentitle a party to relief which was otherwise available to it under the law

Appellate Court should have treated the petition as one under O.XLI, R.27, C.P.C.

Parties should be allowed to produce documents on record which were otherwise unimpeachable for resolving the controversy

Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and the petitioners were allowed to produce documents as additional evidence in the Appellate Court

Authenticity of said documents was to be considered by the Appellate Court at the time of decision of appeal

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Plaintiffs had failed to point out any mis-reading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

When a party had alleged fraud then he/she had to prove the allegations and mere verbal assertion would not be beneficial

Present suit was time barred

Plaintiff had failed to rebut evidence produced on behalf of defendants

Where presumption of truth was attached to a document then same could not be discarded unless proved otherwise by convincing and cogent evidence

Evidence produced on behalf of plaintiff was self contradictory and non-confidence inspiring

Plaintiff had not produced any witness of purchase of suit property

Defendants had not produced any evidence but plaintiff was bound to prove his case on the strength of his own evidence and he could not get any benefit from the shortcoming and weakness of defendants' side

Findings recorded by the Trial Court were based on proper appreciation of evidence on record

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Where matter had been decided in the earlier suit between the same parties then it could not be allowed to be reopened again

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Defendants prayed for the stay of suit filed by plaintiffs on the ground that they had earlier filed a suit against the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction

Validity

Most of the parties in both the suits were same, however, khasra numbers given by both the parties in their suits were different

Matter in issue in both the suits was not the same

Cause of action and relief claimed in both the suits were different, therefore, the provisions of S. 10, C.P.C. were not applicable

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

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.

Defendant lady had been made to suffer for long only for getting lawful emoluments of her deceased husband on the part of plaintiff

Revision was dismissed with costs, in circumstances.

Interest of the parties was to be determined and resolved by the Court where suit property was situated and the defendants were residing

Courts below had correctly appreciated the facts and rightly held that Trial Court did not have jurisdiction in the matter

No illegality had been pointed out in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below

Plaint had rightly been returned under O.VII, R.10 of C.P.C.

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Settlement Officer passed the order that the suit land be entered in the name of defendants in the column of ownership of Missal-e-Haqiyat

Contention of plaintiffs was that the suit property was reserved for mosque of the village

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Defendants were in permissive possession of suit property in lieu of rendering service of Imamat of the mosque

Defendants had failed to establish that suit land was their ancestral Serai

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiff was that she was entitled for her share in the inheritance whereas defendants contended that gift deeds of suit property had been executed in their favour

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Witnesses of impugned transaction had expired but no secondary evidence had been produced by the defendants

Neither gift deeds nor transaction incorporated in the same had been proved by the defendants

Defendants were not in exclusive possession on the suit property

Benefit of Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 could only be claimed when a deed had been admitted or proved in evidence

Courts below had rightly discarded the impugned deed relied upon by the defendants

No exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.