Ingredients

Settlement Officer set-aside gift-mutation accepting application of the donor filed by him in his life ('the gift mutation-in-question') which findings were maintained upto the Board of Revenue

Validity

To constitute a valid gift under Para 149 of Principles of Muhammadan Law, delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee is one of three essential ingredients (i.e. declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession of gift)

Under Para 167 of Principles of Muhammadan Law, the donor can opt revocation of gift before delivery of possession or where gift property has not been delivered to the donee

In the present case, the recital in the mutation of the gift mutation-in-question did not state that the purported subject matter of the gift was handed over to the donees

Therefore, it could not be concluded that the gift of the property-in-question was delivered to the donees

No illegality had been noticed in the impugned gift-mutation cancelling orders passed by revenue authorities

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Civil Court granted temporary injunction in favour of petitioner/plaintiff, however, the same was set-aside by the Appellate Court

Validity

"Tasdeeq Nama" did not show Khata and Khasra numbers of the area of the land-in-question and the delivery of possession to the petitioner/ plaintiff

Hence, there existed neither a prima facie case nor did balance of convenience tilt in his favour

Petitioner/plaintiff had yet to prove his case on the basis of the "Tasdeeq Nama"

Question of irreparable loss in the absence of an injunctive order did not arise

Document ("Tasdeeq Nama"), in the present case had never been presented before the concerned authority for transfer of land in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff

Appellate Court had rightly set-aside injunctive order passed by the Civil Court

Revision filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, in circumstances.

Call-up notice must at the bare minimum specify information regarding alleged commission of offence of money laundering and details of property which has allegedly been acquired from proceeds of crime or contravention of any provision of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010

Notice which does not fulfill such requirements cannot be termed as a valid notice under S. 9 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010.

Call-up notice must at the bare minimum specify information regarding alleged commission of offence of money laundering and details of property which has allegedly been acquired from proceeds of crime or contravention of any provision of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010

Notice which does not fulfill such requirements cannot be termed as a valid notice under S. 9 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010.

Application under S. 265-K of the Cr.P.C., 1898 filed by the petitioner/accused was declined by the Trial Court; he assailed said dismissal order by moving the High Court under S. 561-A of the Cr.P.C., 1898

Contention of the respondent/ complainant was that similar application moved by other accused was also dismissed

Validity

Provision(s) of S. 249-A or 265-K of the Cr.P.C, 1898, were provided by the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, itself, therefore, the same could not be legally brushed aside as 'non-existent'

However, said provisions, being in departure to normal course, would only be exercised when exceptional circumstances justifying the charge to be groundless were present or that there was no probability of the accused being guilty of any offence even if trial was concluded

Dismissal of an application of co-accused would not be a sufficient ground for dismissal of such like application by other accused of the same case, rather criterion of dismissal of such application must always be non-existent of required ingredients i.e. 'charge being groundless' and 'non-existent of possibility of accused being guilty of any offence even if case was taken as correct'

Petition under S. 561-A of the Cr.P.C, 1898, was allowed, in circumstances.

Proceedings initiated by the claimant require that the original proceedings (prosecution) must have been malicious and without any reasonable and probable cause

Every person in the society has a right to seek protection of his rights, but while doing so, such person should not infringe the corresponding rights of others by instituting improper legal proceedings in order to harass them by unjustifiable litigations

To succeed in an action for malicious prosecution, a claimant must plead and prove the following ingredients: (i) that plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant; (ii) that the prosecution ended in favour of the plaintiff; (iii) that the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause; (iv) that the defendant was actuated by malice with improbable motive and not to further the ends of justice; and (v) that the proceedings had interfered with the plaintiff's liberty and had also affected his reputation and the plaintiff had suffered damages.

Petitioner/plaintiff sought grant of status quorestraining the respondents/ defendants from raising further construction over the suit land but same was denied, which order was maintained by the Appellate court

Plea of the respondent was that they had invested a huge amount and the construction was almost completed

Validity

Record (including the report of Commission) revealed that respondents had completed three stories construction work in the suit-land while infact he obtained the proprietary rights of the same under law (i.e. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Regularization of Nautors and Grant of Khalsa Land Ordinance 1974) in lieu of Rs.8,54,007/= and the petitioner aggrieved from the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order/ Sanction of the suit land in favour of respondents, had filed an appeal before the concerned Commissioner

Thus, until and unless, the fact of proprietary rights of suit -land obtained by respondent was not decided by the competent fora i.e. Commissioner and above, no contrary stance could be entertained qua granted land in favour of respondent

Prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience are three pre-requisites introduced by law qua adjudication of grant or refusal of stay order

All said three ingredient are to be judged in a manner that if these pre-requisites are simultaneously, fulfilled, stay order is granted while on other hand in absence of any one of the said qualified criterion stay order cannot be issued

Prima-facie case is ascertained on the strength of facts flowing from the pleadings which in ordinarily and cursory manner convinces a prudent mind in a way that if evidence and facts remain intact a decree can ultimately be passed, while the irreparable loss in short is a loss which cannot be calculated in terms of money and balance of convenience follows the tentative assessment of other two ingredients above

Rationally the prima-facie case requirement governs the other two ingredients

Phrase prima facie case in is true parlance denotes a triable case where some substantial questions are to be probed for that matter to be tried

Injunction cannot be granted unless all the three conditions for grant of injunction co-exist

Injunction is an equitable relief

An applicant at the eve of asking for interim injunction must come with clean hands and establish his case on the weighting operatus of said three ingredient in order to obtain equitable discretionary relief

Thus, in the present case, issuance of temporary injunction would definitely create a new situation contrary to the ground realities pertaining to possession based upon proprietary rights as three storied building had already been constructed on the suit-land by the respondent and ongoing construction was bearing completion, therefore, balance of convenience laid in favour of the respondent and ad interim injunction stopping the construction at this stage, could cause irreparable loss to him rather than the petitioner

Grant of proprietary rights by competent authority prima facie spoke for the respondent

No illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned orders disallowing the status quo

Revision petition, being devoid of force, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Claim of the plaintiff was that he was owner-in-possession of suit-property which was transferred vide mutation (mutation-in-question) in the name of the defendant only with the condition that the same would be returned to him once he would return the amount borrowed from the defendant

Application for the temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court which order was maintained by the Appellate Court

Validity

Petitioner/ plaintiff, in order to substantiate his claim, himself had attached an attested copy of the mutation-in-question

Contents of the mutation-in-question revealed that there was no condition written in the same, rather the respondent/defendant had purchased the suit-property for consideration

Petitioner/plaintiff failed to make out an arguable case in his favour and balance of convenience was not in his favour; moreover, eventually, the petitioner/ plaintiff would win the case, the respondent/defendant would return the suit-property, as such he (petitioner) would not suffer irreparable loss if temporary injunction was not granted in his favour

Respondent /defendant, prima facie, seemed to be bona-fide purchaser of the suit-property

No illegality or material irregularity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below while declining temporary injunction to the petitioner/plaintiff

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Call-up notice must at the bare minimum specify information regarding alleged commission of offence of money laundering and details of property which has allegedly been acquired from proceeds of crime or contravention of any provision of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010

Notice which does not fulfill such requirements cannot be termed as a valid notice under S.9 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010.

Plaintiff/petitioner (government school teacher) sought declaration that his brother (defendant/respondent) be declared as 'benamidar' contending that he was the actual purchaser/owner of suit-property

Motive expressed by the plaintiff/petitioner was that he, being a government servant, could not hold property in his name and also that he had litigation with his wife

Validity

In order to ascertain if the transaction was 'benami' or otherwise, there were important ingredients which needed proof or disproof

Said ingredients were motive; source of money with which the property was purchased; the possession of the property ; the conduct of the parties as to how the property was dealt with; and possession of the original title document

Initial burden of proof was on the party who alleged that ostensible owner was a 'benamidar' for him

Burden of proof could shift from one party to the other during the course of trial of suit but that burden could only be shifted once the initial burden was discharged by the plaintiff

No evidence was on record that consideration paid emanated from any monetary source of the petitioner

Petitioner had only produced certified copies of the title in favour of the respondent, which could hardly be considered to the test as from whose custody the original documents came in evidence

None of the friends of the petitioner/plaintiff appeared to support his version

Petitioner had also failed to satisfy as to why the possession was handed over to the respondent which throughout remained with him

Petitioner/plaintiff was bound to seek strength from his own case

School teacher was not such a sensitive post that the petitioner could not purchase the property in his own name

Having a dispute with his wife would give no justification or reason to the petitioner to purchase the property in the name of his (plaintiff') brother as 'benamidar', therefore, the said story seemed to be concocted and not reliable

Even no documentary proof was produced to justify the motive

No illegality or infirmity was found in the both the decree and judgment passed by the Courts below

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Suit of plaintiff was dismissed wherein he claimed his right of inheritance from the house and for cancellation of the transfer letter issued by the Capital Development Authority ('C.D.A') vide which his late father had transferred suit-house by gift in favour of three sons only, excluding him (the plaintiff) and four daughters

Validity

Record revealed that the donor (deceased father)himself had applied to C.D.A adopting prescribed procedure for the transfer of the suit-house by gift in favour of his four sons excluding one son (the plaintiff/appellant) and four daughters

One of the sisters (defendant/respondent), who asserted to accompany her father at the relevant office(s), deposed successfully the procedure her father had adopted for the purpose; which deposition could not be shaken in cross-examination by the plaintiff/appellant

Another sister (defendant/respondent) deposed that no daughter/sister had challenged the gift-in-question as all excluded siblings, who were not made beneficiaries of gift-in-question, had already been compensated by the father

Onus of proof was on the beneficiaries of the gift deed to prove its execution and that all essential of valid gift (i.e. offer, acceptance and delivery of possession) had been fulfilled

For the relevant areas of the Islamabad Capital Territory , the transfer letter issued by the C.D.A had the status of a title document

Even otherwise, transfer of the suit-house was not made merely on the submission of the memorandum of the oral gift but also on the basis of donor/father's declaration of the oral gift having been duly recorded by the C.D.A

According to the contents of said memorandum, the oral gift was made by the father on the occasion of Eid-ul-Fitr which date was prior to the declaration of the oral gift made by him before the C.D.A on subsequent date

Said memorandum was in the nature of an acknowledgment of an oral gift which was reiterated or re-declared by the donor/father before the C.D.A

Plaintiff/ appellant had failed to prove his assertion

No non-reading/mis-reading of evidence, illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the single bench of the High Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff/wife filed suit for cancellation of gift-mutation incorporated in favour of defendants/respondents (her husband and her/husband's brothers)

Held, that plaintiff had challenged the authenticity of mutation-in-question by filing suit within a year of its incorporation

Plaintiff and defendant though were wife and husband but their relations were strained, and plaintiff had not shown/ written herself to be wife of the defendant and subsequently their marriage was dissolved

When they were not friendly with each other the transfer of property and that too through gift was a question mark

Defendant was bound to prove the factum of gift i.e. offer, acceptance and delivery of possession under the gift without which no sanctity was attached to the gift

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

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff/wife filed suit for cancellation of gift-mutation incorporated in favour of defendants/respondents (her husband and her/husband's brothers)

Petitioners contended that they had proved the correctness and genuineness of gift mutation by producing relevant Revenue Officers and the marginal witness

Held, that Revenue Officer produced by the petitioners deposed that he himself did not know the donor (plaintiff) and that she (donor) was parda nasheen lady

Witnesses who identified the donor (plaintiff) were not her relatives

Patwari Halqa produced by the petitioners deposed that he had been transferred to concerned Patwar circle after the relevant time and neither he had entered the mutation-in-question nor in his presence said mutation was attested

Another witness produced by the petitioners deposed that Revenue Officer checked the Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) of the donor (plaintiff) whereas concerned/retired Tehsildar as a witness deposed that neither the donor had CNIC nor he entered it on the mutation-in-question, thus the authenticity and correctness of gift-mutation was shrouded in mystery, besides the petitioners had not proved the declaration of the alleged gift

Petitioners had not been able to prove the authenticity and correctness of the alleged gift as their case was deficient of required evidence, rather the alleged gift itself was suffering from suspicion and doubts to sustain

Concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below could not be set aside in revisional jurisdiction under S.115 of C.P.C. by the High Court unless such findings suffered from jurisdictional defects, illegality or material irregularity

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

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Temporary injunction, by its nature, is a preventive remedy with the object to maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable damage or preserve the subject-matter of the litigation until the trial is concluded

In order to succeed in obtaining temporary injunction in a case, a plaintiff has to establish co-existence of three conditions/ingredients i.e., (i) prima facie case; (ii) possibility of suffering irreparable loss if temporary injunction is declined; and (iii) the balance of convenience leans in his favour

Of the three conditions, existence of prima facie case is foundational and the other two conditions are considered once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case in his favour.

Contention of plaintiff was that she was owner of suit property and impugned mutations were illegal whereas defendants contended that suit property had been transferred in their favour through gift

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Limitation did not run against a void transaction nor efflux of time could extinguish right of inheritance

Mutation was not a proof of title and beneficiary was bound to prove original transaction

Once it was established that plaintiff was entitled for inheritance then she would become co-sharer in each and every inch of the property of deceased predecessor

Plaintiff was entitled to inherit the left-over of her deceased father as she had become co-sharer in the property on death of her father to the extent of her share

Co-sharers could not alienate the property more than their shares

Each co-sharer would be deemed to be owner in joint property and anyone of them could not act against rights and liabilities of other co-sharers

Donee excluding any heir from inheritance was required to establish the original transaction of gift

Nothing was on record with regard to declaration of gift or its acceptance

Mere transfer of possession to the donee was not sufficient to constitute a valid gift

Gift deed must justify the disinheritance of an heir which in the present case was lacking

Transfer of property should be for consideration and transferee must have acted in good faith taking reasonable care to ascertain that transferor had the power to transfer the property

Subsequent purchaser of suit property had not taken care of important aspect of the matter

Right of transferee should be protected from the share of defendants and not from the share of plaintiff

Principle of bona fide purchaser was based on equity which could not be invoked in such a manner that might cause injustice to the others

Vendees of suit property should claim their right, if any, from their transferors-defendants

Plaintiff being residuary of deceased should inherit from his property under Law of Sharia

Impugned judgments and decrees were based on correct appreciation of record

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Defendants thereafter moved application for vacation of temporary injunction which was accepted and appeal against the said order was also dismissed

Validity

Plaintiff had admitted in his plaint that a thoroughfare existed on the spot

Said thoroughfare was not having a dead end near the property of plaintiff but had been leading to the area of another village and same was being used by inhabitants of said village

Defendants were using the said thoroughfare for access to their property

High Court observed that Project for construction of road on a thoroughfare was a project of public utility which was beneficial for all including the plaintiff

Substantial progress had been made in construction of the road

Construction work so conducted on the spot was of such a nature which could neither be reversed at this stage nor such an act was in anyone's interest

Balance of convenience was in favour of continuation and completion of project for the benefit of community

Loss apprehended to the plaintiff in the present case had already been caused and in case property was found to be in his ownership then plaintiff might be compensated adequately

Loss in the present case would not be irreparable, in circumstances

Earlier order for grant of temporary injunction might not be regarded as any findings having achieved finality

Civil Court while deciding an application under O.XXXIX, R.2-B of C.P.C. could not be deemed to have been bound by the earlier decision made on an application for temporary injunction

Courts below were justified in taking a different view in the present case

Decision on application for temporary injunction was based on tentative assessment of record and findings recorded therein might not be termed as definite and final of a Court of law

Changes might occurred in the situation and subject matter of a suit

Court of law could not be bound by a first order made on the application for grant of temporary injunction while deciding application under O.XXXIX, R.2-B of C.P.C.

Plaintiff might amend his plaint and claim compensation for the property which he had been claiming to be his ownership

If plaintiff so claimed then Civil Court would not hesitate in granting adequate compensation provided he had proved the area in dispute to be his ownership

Revision was dismissed, accordingly.

Gift was required to be proved within the parameters provided in Islamic law and Islamic jurisprudence by proving the basic ingredients such as offer, acceptance and delivery of possession.

Plaintiff was to prove that he was in possession of the immoveable property in suit; who had been dispossessed by the defendant; that the dispossession was not in accordance with the law; and the dispossession took place within six months of the filing of the suit.

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

Application for temporary injunction was dismissed accordingly.

Criminal breach of trust is committed by a person (i) when there is dishonest entrustment of property to any person or with dominion over the property (ii) dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the property in his own use by the person who has been entrusted with the property (iii) who dishonestly use or dispose of the property in violation of any direction of the law prescribing the mode in which the trust is to be discharged (iv) dishonest use or disposal of the property in violation of any legal contract express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust and (v) willfully suffer other person to do so by the person to whom the property has been entrusted.

Temporary injunction can be granted only where plaintiff has a prima facie arguable case, where balance of convenience is also be in favour of the plaintiff, and there would be irreparable loss to plaintiff if temporary injunction is not granted

All said three ingredients should co-exist.

Ingredients of gift were offer, acceptance and delivery of possession.

Plaintiff had also not disclosed correct description of suit property, which had been recorded in the name of Provincial Government

Suit had been filed after lapse of thirty five years and was time barred

Party was to pursue his legal remedy with diligence and if suit was beyond limitation then each day delay should have been explained

Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court did not contain findings on each and every issue

Trial Court had passed well-reasoned and speaking judgment and decree based on correct appraisal of evidence

Appellate Court had reversed the findings of Trial Court without any valid and convincing grounds

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

Revision was allowed, accordingly.

Prosecution had to establish that whether the maker of dying declaration had the physical capacity to make the same; whether the maker had opportunity to identify the assailants; whether there was a chance of mis-identification on the part of dying man in identifying and naming the attackers; whether it was free from prompting from any outside quarter; whether the witness, who heard the deceased making his statement, heard him correctly and whether his evidence could be relied upon.

Ingredients of Benami transaction were motive, consideration, possession of property and possession of original documents.

Contention of plaintiffs was that they were owners of suit property and impugned transaction in favour of defendant was Benami

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Initial burden of proof was on the party who had alleged that the ostensible owner was a Benamidar for him

Weakness in the defence evidence would not relieve plaintiff from discharging the said burden

Burden of proof might shift from one party to the other during the trial of a suit

When burden of proof was shifted from plaintiff to defendant and defendant failed to discharge the same then plaintiff would succeed

Plaintiffs, in the present case, had failed to discharge the initial onus of proof

Courts below had rightly non-suited the plaintiffs, in circumstance

No illegality, irregularity, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Court below

Revision was dismissed in limine accordingly.

Ingredients of Benami transaction were motive, consideration, possession of property and possession of original documents.

No injunction can be issued unless all ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to the aggrieved party co-exist.

Ingredients to establish malicious prosecution were; that plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant; that prosecution ended in favour of plaintiff; that defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause; that prosecution was actuated by malice; that the proceedings had interfered with plaintiff's liberty and had also affected his reputation and plaintiff had suffered damages.

Essential ingredient to attract the offence under S. 489-F, P.P.C. is that the cheque should be given in respect of a loan or future obligation.

Offence of criminal breach of trust would not constitute unless ingredients thereof including "voluntary entrustment of property "and" its subsequent misappropriation" are not co-existing.

Plaintiff filed suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution but the plaint was rejected under O.VII, R. 11, C.P.C.

Appellate Court upheld the order of the Trial Court

Validity

Plaintiff had been acquitted in the criminal case on the basis of benefit of doubt

Ingredients for establishing suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution, were namely that the plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant; the prosecution ended in plaintiff's favour; the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause; the defendant was actuated by malice; the proceedings had withheld plaintiff's liberty and had also affected his or her reputation and the plaintiff had suffered damages

No question of prosecution without reasonable and probable cause arose in the present case

Petitioner's liberty was not allegedly curtailed by keeping him in custody

Court had not found the case against petitioner to be false

Particulars of damages were also not shown in the plaint

Trial Court had rightly rejected the plaint

Revision was dismissed.

When any document produced on behalf of plaintiff had been denied by the defendant then authenticity and credibility of the said document would be subject to final adjudication by the Court

Temporary injunction in that eventuality could not be granted

Disputed questions of facts were involved in the present case and same could be determined through evidence

Defendants were in possession of the suit property and they were entitled to free and lawful usufruct of the same

Limitation was a mixed question of law and fact and Trial Court was to decide the same after recording of evidence

Appellate Court had decided the question of limitation while disposing of petition for grant of temporary injunction and nothing was left for the Trial Court to adjudicate upon with regard to limitation

Jurisdiction of Trial Court had been exercised by the Appellate Court, which was not vested in it

Three ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to the plaintiff must coexist for grant of temporary injunction

Detailed inquiry was required to finally adjudicate upon the lis and right, if any, in favour of plaintiff would depend upon final outcome of the suit

Defendants would suffer an irreparable loss if injunction was granted in favour of plaintiff

Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was not sustainable which was set aside and that of Trial Court was restored

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Provisions of S. 489-F, P.P.C., will only be attracted if the prosecution proves issuance of cheque; such issuance was with dishonest intention; purpose of issuance of cheque was to re-pay a loan or to fulfill an obligation (which is wide term inter alia applicable to lawful agreements, contracts, services, promises by which one is bound or an act which binds a person to some performance) and on presentation, the cheque was dishonoured

Said ingredients are imperative to attract the provisions of S. 489-F, P.P.C.

Plaintiffs had filed the present suit that if disputed water supply project was executed and drinking water was supplied to the defendants then their rights would be affected

Petition for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Plaintiff in order to succeed in obtaining an order for injunction was required to demonstrate a good prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and that he would suffer an irreparable loss and injury if injunction was not granted

No order of injunction could be passed unless all the three ingredients did exist

Plaintiffs had failed to make out a prima facie arguable case and that balance of convenience was in their favour

Temporary injunction if not granted, plaintiffs would not suffer irreparable loss rather same would be caused to the defendants

Government had approved development scheme for provision of water to the defendants

Grant of temporary injunction to interfere with public duties of any department had been prohibited under S.56(d) of Specific Relief Act, 1877

No material irregularity or illegality while passing the impugned orders had been committed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution had to establish through cogent evidence that the dying man was in full senses, conscious, alert to the surroundings, fully oriented in time space and able to make a coherent statement

Doctor present at the occasion would give a fitness certificate about the condition of a dying man.

No date, time, place and names of witnesses had been mentioned in the plaint in whose presence offer, acceptance and delivery of possession was made

Witness produced by the plaintiff had mentioned in his statement the date and names of witnesses but same was unauthorized improvement out of scope of pleadings which could not be considered or discussed

Possession was not handed over to the plaintiff under the alleged gift

Plaintiff had failed to prove the alleged gift mutation through corroborative, concrete and solid evidence

Contradictory statements of witnesses of plaintiff had extinguished the claim as propounded in the plaint

Prerequisites of valid gift were offer by the donor without any enticement or duress, acceptance of said offer by the donee and delivery of possession under gift to the donee

Ingredients of gift had neither been asserted in the plaint nor have been proved as per law

No illegality, irregularity, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiff was that he was owner of suit property and impugned transaction in favour of defendant was Benami

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Requirements; to prove Benami transaction were source of consideration; custody of original title deed; possession of suit property and motive for Benami transaction

Plaintiff except possession had failed to prove the rest of the ingredients of Benami transaction

No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below was found

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Ingredients of Benami transaction were motive; consideration; possession of property and possession of original documents.

Four important ingredients of S. 84, P.P.C. are (i) commission of offense; (ii) unsound mind; (iii) incapability of knowing the nature of act/offence; and (iv) distinction between right and wrong.

Contention of plaintiffs was that they were entitled to inherit the suit property and gift deed in favour of defendant had been managed by him

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Beneficiary of transaction was bound to prove the same by convincing evidence

Registration of oral gift was not necessary

Once gift was claimed to be in writing then same was to be proved as required by law for proving a document

Defendant being beneficiary of gift was bound to prove the same by convincing evidence

No attesting witness of gift deed had been examined by the defendant to prove its genuineness

Withholding of attesting witnesses of gift deed would operate against the claimant

Defendant had failed to prove the execution of gift deed in his favour

Mere admission of making thumb impression before Sub-Registrar would not be sufficient to rebut the challenges if made towards genuineness of a document

Gift would be valid whenever offer was made by the donor and it was accepted by the donee with delivery of possession of property gifted out

If donor having made a gift yet continued to exercise any act of ownership over gifted property then it would be sufficient to hold such claimed gift as invalid

Defendant had admitted that all the brothers and sisters were residing in the suit house

Possession of suit property was not delivered to the defendant, in circumstances

Alleged gift was invalid in the present case

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Injunction was a preventive remedy for the purpose of preserving the status quo of the matter of suit pending its determination

Status with regard to title or possession of immovable property as existed on the date of filing of suit was to be maintained if status quo was granted by the Court

Court for issuance or refusal of interim injunction had to examine whether a good prima facie case was made out in favour of plaintiff

If plaintiff succeeded to establish a good prima facie case then other ingredients i.e. irreparable loss and balance of convenience would be looked into

Court had to make only a tentative assessment of plaintiff's case for enabling itself to examine whether prerequisites for grant of injunction existed in favour of plaintiff or not

Court might examine the pleadings, affidavits, counter affidavits, rejoinder if any and other documents while dilating upon the merits of case for grant of temporary injunction

Transmission line of defendant was already in existence and same was passing through suit property before entering of plaintiff into lease agreement

New transmission line had been proposed on the same route as it existed presently

Plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of injunction

Balance of convenience was also not in favour of plaintiff and there appeared to be no question of irreparable loss to the plaintiff if alleged work of laying transmission line was carried out

Plaintiff was not entitled for discretionary relief of temporary injunction in circumstances

Application for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed accordingly.

Ingredients of gift were declaration by the donor, acceptance of gift by the donee and delivery of possession of subject matter by the donor to donee.

Essentials of gift were declaration by the donor, acceptance of gift by the donee and delivery of possession of subject matter of gift to donee.

Initial burden to prove the negative fact would stand discharged the moment a person substantiated his allegations by making a statement on oath and onus would be shifted to the other side to prove that the transaction in question was bona fide and legal

Plaintiff, as her own witness, appeared before the Trial Court and reiterated the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation on oath

Defendant was required to prove not only the validity of disputed mutation but also the bona fide and legality of transaction of gift incorporated therein

Courts below misdirected the plaintiff by misplacing the burden of proof and recorded impugned findings

Misplacing burden of proof would vitiate judgment passed by the Courts below

Trial Court illegally and erroneously failed to cast the burden on the defendant and recorded impugned findings which were perverse

Beneficiary of gift mutation was bound not only to prove the disputed mutations but also the factum of gift

Defendant neither in his written statement stated the date, time, place and name of witnesses before whom declaration and acceptance of gift was made nor any of his witnesses made such statement

Failure to establish the requirements of gift i.e. proposal and acceptance was fatal to the claim of defendant

Acceptance of gift was personal act of donee who was required to prove the same through his statement

Attorney could not substitute the donee under the law

Donee, in the present case, did not appear before the Trial Court to make statement and only his attorney appeared in the witness-box

Statement of attorney was of no avail to prove the transaction of gift

Gift incorporated in the impugned mutation had not been proved in circumstances

Neither presumption of correctness nor truth to the contents of mutation was attached under the law

Once existence of mutation was questioned by a party in the suit then the person claiming benefit thereunder was bound to prove the same

Patwari Halqa who entered the mutation and Revenue Officer who attested the same should be produced in the witness box to prove valid attestation of mutation

Defendant neither produced Patwari Halqa nor Revenue Officer who sanctioned the impugned mutations

Donee had failed to prove the valid sanctioning of impugned mutations in circumstances

Donee was not legal heir of donor nor in ordinary circumstances was entitled to get the suit property

Donor was not bound to furnish reasons for making a gift but no gift in the ordinary course of human conduct was made without reason and justification unless donor was divested of power of reasons and unless he/she was a person of unsound mind

Impugned mutations had been attested to deprive the plaintiff of her right of inheritance

Defendant had failed to justify the disinheritance of plaintiff through disputed gift mutations

Fraud would vitiate the most solemn transaction

Any transaction based on fraud would be void

Limitation did not run against void transaction nor efflux of time extinguished the right of inheritance

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside

Impugned mutations were declared illegal, void ab initio and ineffective upon the rights of plaintiff

Plaintiff would be entitled to her legal share as per Sunni school from the inheritance of her deceased father

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Ingredients of gift were the declaration of gift by the donor, acceptance of gift by donee and delivery of possession of corpus.

Plaintiffs failed to deposit the balance sale price within specified time and application for extension of said period was allowed

Validity

Mere execution of agreement, attestation of mutation or even registration of sale deed by itself did not furnish proof of ingredients of "sale"

Beneficiary was bound to prove such document as well as transaction of sale

Allotment of property in question did not exist in favour of the vendor at the time of execution of agreement to sell

Vendor was not competent to settle sale with the plaintiff in circumstances

Mere admissibility of document as evidence was not ipso facto the proof of its execution

Due execution of document was required to be proved in consonance with the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Document could only be used as evidence if two attesting witnesses, at least, had been called for the purpose of proving its contents, execution and construction

Son of one deceased marginal witness was summoned at the request of plaintiff to testify signatures of his father but he was not examined

Non-examination of summoned witness would compel the Court to draw an adverse inference against the concerned party

Agreement to sell was not required to be notarized and Notary Public could not be equated at par with the author of document

Plaintiffs had not examined the scribe of agreement to sell whereas one of its attesting witnesses had died

Maxim: Secundum allegata et probata that a fact had to be alleged by a party before it was allowed to be proved had full command of O.VI, R.2 & O.VIII, R.2, C.P.C.; as such any evidence led by a party beyond the scope of pleadings was liable to be ignored

Other marginal witness was one of the plaintiffs and his statement being that of an interested person could not be given due weight

Decree passed by the Court was final and Court had no power to extend time to deposit the balance sale price

Impugned order for extension of time to deposit sale consideration was set aside

Suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Onus after denial of transfer of property by the plaintiff would shift to the defendant to prove the genuineness of gift mutation

Defendant had failed to prove the transaction to be a "gift"

Ingredients of gift i.e. offer, acceptance and delivery of possession had not been proved in the present case

Defendant had not proved the time, date, place and witnesses before whom declaration of gift was made by the plaintiff

Actual consideration for the transfer of property had not been established on record

Claim of defendant that gift mutation had been entered on account of mutual love and affection as consideration had failed

Identity of person appearing for recording of mutation was not established

Identity of parties to the transaction, subject matter of the transaction, nature of transaction and consideration had to be proved to prove the genuineness of a transaction of transfer of property

None of the said ingredients had been proved by the defendant

Defendant could have applied for comparison of thumb impression to prove that plaintiff appeared before the revenue authorities to get mutation entered but it was not done

Defendant had not been able to prove that plaintiff got the gift mutation sanctioned and the entries in roznamcha waqiati had lost significance and could not be used to corroborate the gift that had not been proved otherwise

Property of plaintiff was firstly transferred to her father who was in a position to influence her decision

Defendant had not proved that any independence advice was available to the plaintiff if she had actually transferred the property to her father

Component of undue influence could not be ruled out in circumstances

Transaction in question was doubtful in every aspect and could not be upheld

Impugned mutation was void

Judgments passed by the Courts below were based on mis-reading and non-reading of evidence and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction

Suit property had been fraudulently transferred and suit was within time

Possession of one co-sharer was the possession of all co-sharers

Plaintiff being co-owner should be deemed to be in possession of inherited property

Private witnesses had not been able to prove the gift transaction so evidence of official witnesses would be of no use

Quality of witnesses and not quantity would matter

Erroneous concurrent findings based on mis-reading and non-reading of evidence were no longer sacrosanct

Law protected the right of women to inherit ancestral property

Trial Court had wrongly held that suit of plaintiff was not maintainable

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside and suit was decreed

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Judgment to consist of three elements, namely, the points for determination; the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision.