Onus

2026 CLC 520 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts.17 & 79Agreement to sell, execution ofProofOnus

In order to prove a valid agreement to sell, it is the duty of the beneficiary to prove its genuineness by producing its marginal witnesses.

2018 CLCN 57 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Oral giftMutationPre-requisitesProofOnusInheritanceDeprivation of plaintiff/lawful female heir of deceasedNon-production of marginal witnesses by the doneesEffectAdducing evidence beyond pleadingsScope

Petitioners/defendants contended that two courts below had wrongly cancelled gift mutation in their favour as respondent/plaintiff had failed to discharge initial burden of proof of fraud

Respondent/plaintiff contended that her father was old, sick and infirm having no senses, so gift mutation in favour of petitioners was illegal in the eye of law

Validity

Evidence revealed that respondent and her witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, they stood the test and remained firm on their stance, thus, the initial burden of proof was discharged by the respondent through her evidence

Once the onus was discharged by the respondent, the petitioners being beneficiaries of the gift were required to prove its due execution by the deceased through clear and convincing evidence

Admittedly, the marginal witnesses were not produced by the petitioners

Petitioners filed application to submit a list of witnesses before the Trial Court, which was accepted after which Revenue Officials were summoned through process of Court and after said evidence, another application was filed by the petitioners to summon marginal witnesses which application was dismissed

Said order of dismissal was not assailed any further and the same attained finality

Petitioners thereafter moved application for production of additional evidence in appeal for summoning of marginal witnesses

Said application was rightly dismissed by the Appellate Court as they could not have been permitted to fill lacunae in their case

No specific date, month and year was mentioned by the sole defence witness regarding the meeting when other prospective legal heirs were allegedly called by the deceased

Written statement filed by the petitioners was completely silent as far as convening of the meeting was concerned when the oral gift was made and was also silent regarding date and place of the event

Nothing stated outside the scope of pleadings could be looked into and no decision could be based on such evidence

When any evidence beyond pleadings was adduced, no party on the basis of such evidence could be allowed to set-up altogether a new case

Requirement of law was to plead date, time and place in the pleadings in such cases

Whenever gift mutation was challenged, burden of proof squarely lay on the beneficiary to prove not only the mutation but also the original transaction of oral gift, which the beneficiary was required to fall back upon

Petitioners/beneficiaries had not produced as witnesses the participants of the meeting when the oral gift was made

Said witnesses of the meeting would have been the best evidence for the petitioners to prove oral gift

By not producing said persons, best witness had been withheld; the presumption was against the petitioners in terms of Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Petitioners had also not produced attesting witnesses of the mutation who appeared on behalf of the donees

No explanation was available on record for non-production of said witnesses

Essential requirements having not been fulfilled Tamleek mutation was not proved

Petitioners were also under an obligation to establish that at a time of execution of Tamleek by the deceased, independent advice was available to him and that he fully understood its contents

Court while analyzing the evidence had to keep in view the fact that the mutation of gift which had the effect of depriving lawful female heir had to be jealously scrutinized so that the normal course of inheritance was not frustrated

Two Courts below had rightly appreciated the evidence which could not be set aside in revisional jurisdiction merely because another view was possible

No illegality or infirmity having been noticed

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

2013 MLD 95 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 42Qanun-e-Shahdat (10 of 1984), Arts. 72, 79, 117 & 120Suit for declarationConcurrent findings of fact by two courts belowTransactions, proof ofOnusPlaintiffs claimed mutations and registered sale deeds executed by vendor in favour of defendants as illegal and forgedTrial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently dismissed suit and appeal filed by plaintiffsValidity

Defendants fully discharged their burden by producing marginal witnesses of mutations and registered sale deeds in question

Defence witnesses who were marginal witnesses of different suit mutations and registered deeds appeared on behalf of defendants and categorically admitted their signatures and thumb impressions on suit mutations and registered deeds

Burden of proof was always on plaintiffs to prove their claim

Plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claim through cogent, conclusive and trustworthy oral and documentary evidence

Suit mutations and registered deeds contain endorsement of revenue official/officer to the effect that the same were signed and thumb impressed by vendor and were attested in his presence

Findings of two courts below given on all issues in their judgments and decrees were based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and were well founded

Plaintiffs failed to point out any illegality, material irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence or any jurisdictional error or defect in concurrent findings of two courts below to warrant interference by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction

Both the courts below had rightly dismissed suit of plaintiffs

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 YLR 1111 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

ProofOnus

Onus always lay on the prosecution to prove its case; and the prosecution had to succeed upon the strength of its own case and not on the weakness of defence

Accused had only to show a dent having created in the case of the prosecution; and that he was entitled to benefit of even single doubt depicted in the prosecution evidence; and he had not to show that it was a case suffered from more that one doubt.

2012 YLR 1355 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S.302(b)Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.21Qatl-e-amdLast seen evidence­ProofOnusScope

Where the accused failed to furnish a plausible explanation that on which point, time and where the deceased separated from him, the accused could not be said to have discharged the onus that lay on him in view of the provisions as contained in Art. 21 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

2012 PLC 73 LABOUR-APPELLANT-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

Arts. 117 & 118Burden of proofOnus

Onus would be on the one who asserted the fact and not the other side who refused or contradicted the assertion.

2012 CLC 612 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Arts. 72, 117 & 120Document, execution ofPardahnashin ladyProof ofOnusWhether a lady is Pardahnashin, is a question of fact

Burden in respect of a document purported to have been executed by Pardahnashin woman affecting her right or interest in immovable property is on the person claiming that right or interest under a document and it is for that person to establish affirmatively that the document was substantially understood by the lady and it was really her free and intelligent act.

2011 PTD 756 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

ProofOnusShifting ofScope

Onus shifts on the other side only when the burden of proof is sufficiently discharged.

2009 PLD 41 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Onus is never static and shifts during trial.

2008 PTD 226 INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Adventure in the nature of tradeOnus

Onus lies on the department to show that a transaction was 'adventure in the nature of trade'.

1956 PLD 521 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Onus Onus

Question not of importance where lower Courts have come to a positive finding.

1955 PLD 17 REVENUE-DECISION-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

S. 4-Mortgage should be subsisting on date of application-Onus

After expiry of 60 years application not competent.

1955 PLD 303 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Onus Onus-Every onus involves an opposite presumption in the absence of proof discharging such onus.

1955 PLD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Onus Onus

Wrongly placed-Question may be agitated appeal-Remand.

1953 PLD 27 PRIVY-COUNCIL Judicial Precedent

Onus Onus-Not so important where both parties led evidence-Question turning upon reliability of witness-Opinion of trial Judge to prevail.