Fraud

Appellants / plaintiffs assailed gift deed, 27 years after its execution in favour of respondent / defendant, on the plea of fraud

Validity

Appellants / plaintiffs alleged fraud and they had to give particulars of fraud and also provide sufficient material and evidence to support such allegation, whereafter, the burden shifted upon respondent / defendant to prove genuineness of transaction allegedly based on fraud

In absence of any particulars, material or evidence to support allegation of fraud, lawful presumption attached to official record in the shape of gift, statement of donors and continued possession of suit land with respondent / defendant could not be ignored

Long standing entries in revenue record under Article 49 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 especially in register of record of rights, carried presumptions of truth and could not be controverted by mere oral evidence unless proved otherwise by sufficient and convincing evidence

Judge in Chambers of High Court, after careful scrutiny of facts and evidence produced by parties and with proper understanding of legal positions had rightly held that appellants / plaintiffs failed to establish fraudulent gift and mutation of suit land in favour of respondent / defendant in revenue record

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court, as the same was un-exceptionable

Appeals were dismissed.

Suit of respondents/plaintiffs was decreed, however, the appeal and revision filed by the petitioners/defendants were dismissed by the Appellate and Revisional Court, respectively

Validity

Basic ingredients of a valid gift are: offer, acceptance and delivery of possession

No descriptions of making of offer as to gifting out of the disputed property to the petitioners by the donor, acceptance thereof by them, venue and names of witnesses in whose presence such transaction took place, had been given, which were necessary to be pleaded and proved

Even the same had not been deposed during evidence either by the petitioners or their witnesses

A party cannot lead any evidence beyond its pleadings

No illegality was found in the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court as well as judgments and decrees passed by the trial and first Appellate Court warranting interference by Supreme Court

Thus, no case for grant of leave was made out

Leave was refused, in circumstances.

Fraud vitiates most solemn proceedings and thus period of limitation would not be an embargo upon justifiable claim directed against fraud

When the very foundational transaction is based on fraud and mala fide, the subsequent superstructure built thereon cannot be allowed to stand and ultimately collapses.

Petitioner / plaintiff assailed mutation in question but suit and appeal were concurrently dismissed by two Courts below on the ground of bar to the jurisdiction of Civil Courts against consolidation proceedings

Validity

Without any proof showing that change in subsequent record of rights was result of consolidation proceedings or any lawful order passed thereunder, it could not be presumed that such change occurred due to consolidation

Courts decide cases on the basis of proof and not on presumption

Findings of both the Courts below upon section 26 of Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 were based upon presumptions and conjectures and were not tenable in the eyes of law

Complicated questions of law and fact, particularly involving allegations of fraud, necessarily require recording and appreciation of evidence fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Civil Court

Fraud can only be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court and not by revenue authorities exercising summary jurisdiction

Fraud and mala fides vitiate all proceedings and cannot be protected by any statutory bar

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and the matter was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh on question of jurisdiction

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings and any edifice so raised on the basis of such fraudulent transaction, stands automatically dismantled and any ill-gotten gain achieved by fraudster cannot be validated under any norms of law.

Petitioner / plaintiff was aggrieved of dismissal of his suit by respondent / Anti-Encroachment Tribunal against recovery of possession of suit property as encroachment

Validity

Petitioner / plaintiff did not prove any legal title or character in the property

Plaintiff under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 must establish a legal character or right to property to maintain a declaratory suit

Petitioner / plaintiff lacked registered instrument or sanctioned mutation and had no such legal character

Bare declaration, under proviso to S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 was barred when further relief could be sought

Petitioner / plaintiff could have sought specific performance against his vendors or approached the competent authority for regularization but instead sought a negative declaration against statutory authorities, which was not maintainable

Fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings

Reliance on fabricated and forged allotment orders was itself sufficient to non-suit the petitioner / plaintiff

Courts could not lend their discretionary jurisdiction to a party which had based its case on forged documents

High Court declined to interfere in the order of Anti Encroachment Tribunal, which had carefully examined the material, applied correct principles of law, and dismissed the suit, as there was no illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence in the judgment

Petitioner / plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership without any valid instrument, mutation or sanction from the Board and had relied on inadmissible photocopies and unregistered agreements lacking witnesses

Petitioner / plaintiff failed to rebut the record of authorities marking his documents as fake

Petitioner / plaintiff leveled scandalous allegations of bribery without proof and obstructed lawful anti-encroachment operations

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners were aggrieved of order passed by Judicial Officer annulling transaction of disposal/sale of land in question and cancelling sale deeds executed in their favour

Validity

Restrictions in terms of S. 11, C.P.C. have to be read and interpreted with reference to the Court

Cooperatives Board was competent to seek reconsideration of approval to sale

Cooperatives Board was not a Court, hence not obligated to adhere to provisions of Evidence Act (Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984) and Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or subject to constraints provided therein

Re-opening of transaction of sale required substantive and convincing information regarding fraud

To create exception to principle of finality, fraud must be established

In the present case facts adequately proved fraud, and Judicial Officer had rightly exercised jurisdiction to annul the sale

Facts establishing fraud need to be amplified and focused for the purposes of confirming decision of Judicial Officer, in terms of section 11 of Punjab Undesireable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993

Once bid lower than base price was rejected there was no justification to accommodate first petitioner, after 10 months, by entertaining offered price lower than the valuation of property discussed in the meeting held earlier

Absence of time-limit for deposit of 75% of bid price was fatal and there was no explanation that why ex-management proceeded to extend approval without settling of terms and conditions of sale

Change of heart from decision of selling through public auction to alleged sale by way of negotiation/private treaty remained a mystery

No explanation was provided to justify any exception

Such gross illegalities could not be swept under the carpet

Management at relevant time erred while granting approval previously, in wake of blatant illegalities and irregularities, allowing execution of sale deeds hastily without adhering to any schedule for payment of 75% of the bid price

Grant of previous approval suffered from wrongful exercise of authority

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Judicial Officer annulling the sale in question

Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Gift mutations were not sanctioned in the common assembly of the village in oblivion of S. 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 (Act), which suggested the existence of mischief of fraud in the transaction and such flaw necessarily vitiated the validity of the gift mutations

Entrench intent and objective of S. 42 of the Act is to eliminate element of fraud, collusion or secrecy in the transaction as well as to maintain the sanctity of the transaction.

Withdrawal of suit/appeal on the basis of compromise by two sisters (plaintiffs) with brothers (defendants) after receiving their share in the inheritance

Effect

Suit filed by the respondents/daughters was dismissed, but the appeal was allowed

Validity

Respondent substantially dissipated the onus, thus, being beneficiaries of the gift mutations burden was shifted upon the petitioners to prove the validity of the gift initially by describing the day, date, time, names of the witnesses and venue of the transaction as well the offer made by the donor and acceptance of the offer of gift by the petitioners as well as delivery of possession of gift property in their pleading and said asserted stance should be proved through believable and corroborative evidence as well as to prove subsequent event regarding registration of gift deed independently, however, petitioners failed to prove the ingredients of gift, which legal flaw vitiated the validity of gift deed

Non-proving of the asserted stance of gift transaction through corroborative, credible and trustworthy evidence was considered a material flaw, which dismantled the very foundation of the stance of the petitioners

Petitioners tried to deprive the respondent from her inherited property by committing fraud and getting the gift mutations entered in their favour, whereas, such like custom/practice of depriving of the females from their accrued share in the inheritance had seriously been deprecated

One of the plaintiffs (daughter) appeared before the Trial Court and got her statement recorded on oath to the effect that she had received her share from the petitioners and that statement was not controverted by the petitioners, thus, being the beneficiary of the gift transaction they themselves had dismantled the validity of the gift mutations

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Nearness of the relationship of the petitioner with the elderly widow lady/maternal grandmother as her grandson, the factum of him residing in the same house with her to the exclusion of anybody else coupled with absence of independent advice being established on record placed heavy responsibility upon the shoulders of the petitioner to establish property transaction by independent, unimpeachable, creditworthy and coherent evidence.

Fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings and any edifice so raised on the basis of such fraudulent transactions would automatically dismantle and any ill-gotten gain achieved by fraudster could not be validated under any norms of laws.

Contention of the petitioner was that respondents being beneficiaries of the gift transaction had failed to divulge details thereof in their written statement, thus, the suit had rightly been dismissed by the Trial Court

Validity

Party pleading any misrepresentation and fraud was obliged to narrate particulars to that effect

Plaint was lacking any details or particulars that how the transaction was tainted with fraud

Donor and predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners accepted the donee as lawful owner of the suit land and never challenged the gift mutation in their lifetime

Article 113 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, ordains that no fact need be proved in any proceedings which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule or pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings

Petitioner's own witness admitted qua the validity of gift, thus, there remained no necessity for the respondents to assert or lead any material to that effect

After effecting of gift mutation necessary entries were incorporated in the revenue record for the subsequent years

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners claimed recovery of alleged unpaid amount of compensation with interest, dating back to 15-9-1975 up to the present date, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Validity

Petitioners' claims were grounded on fraud and based on fictitious documents

Petitioners managed to prolong the proceedings for years, wasting the Court's valuable time

Actions of petitioners were not only vexatious but also abuse of judicial process

One of the two petitioners deceitfully extracted a sum of Rs.3,743,181/- by misleading Court into granting orders in his favour

These were the cases where imposition of special costs were fully justified

Assertion made by authorities that entire claims of both petitioners were fraudulent and based on forged documents was enough to dismiss the petitions

Fraudulent conduct of petitioners had disqualified them from receiving any favourable judgment

High Court directed the petitioners to deposit costs of Rs.2,000,000/- (Rupees Two Million) each

High Court directed one of the petitioners who had already received a sum of Rs.3,743,181/- as alleged compensation, to return/redeposit the amount

High Court further directed that in case any petitioner failed to deposit his respective amounts within the stipulated period, the office of High Court would immediately fix the matters in Court for further orders

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondents (plaintiffs) had sought a declaration regarding the Memorandum of oral gift and its cancellation was also prayed for

It was pleaded in the plaint that respondents were in possession of the property and that they had been dispossessed; that after the filing of the suit for partition, the Memorandum was fraudulently prepared so as to deprive the appellants of their hereditary rights; and that the Memorandum was fabricated

Validity

Plain reading of the plaint showed that the assertion of fraud was of a general nature and the particulars thereof had not been stated

Initial burden to prove that the Memorandum of gift was forged and fabricated was on the respondents

During the trial, the initial burden of proving the factum of fraud or fabrication could not be discharged by the respondents

There was no reference in the plaint to the oral gift made in the year 1962 and, therefore, an issue in this regard had not been framed

Respondents were also not able to establish that at any time during or after the lifetime of the predecessor-in-interest they had remained in possession of the property let alone having been dispossessed

It was not disputed that the transfer of shares by the Housing Society in the name of the appellants (defendats) was not challenged by the respondents

It was also not disputed that the appellants were minors when the oral gift was made in their favour by the predecessor-in-interest in 1962

Furthermore the respondents had made a reference to the property having been gifted in favour of the appellants in their earlier suit filed for seeking partition

Appeal was allowed, impugned judgment of the High Court was set-aside, with the consequence that suit filed by respondents was dismissed.

Fraud vitiates all actions and no Court can uphold a right on fraud.

While it is true that the Courts should be careful in coming to a finding of fraud and should normally satisfy themselves that the finding is based on reliable evidence, it cannot be said that any special number of witnesses or any special nature of evidence is needed to establish fraud

It is for the Court which is to decide this question to be satisfied that the evidence adduced before it is such that it can believe it

Nonetheless, when a party alleges fraud it becomes its duty to prove the same and generalized allegations or for that matter, mere bald assertions without evidence cannot shift the initial burden.

Respondent denied selling her land pursuant to the sale mutations or otherwise, and also denied receipt of sale consideration

Counsel for respondent contended that the burden to establish the sale lay upon the beneficiaries of the sale, i.e., the petitioners in terms of Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984; that respondent was not aware of the sale mutations and upon coming to learn of them filed the suit well within the period prescribed in the Limitation Act, 1908; that the respondent's lands were being looked after by her maternal uncle (petitioner No. 7), and as such she was in constructive possession thereof, which fact is further confirmed as she did not claim mesne profits in her suit; that only one of the beneficiaries of the purported sale came forward to testify, that is petitioner No. 2, who admittedly was a child at the time of the sale and as such could not have testified regarding facts thereof; that his father (petitioner No. 1) also testified but stated that the sale consideration was paid by his wife, who did not come forward to testify, and in not doing so an adverse presumption, in terms of Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, would be drawn that if she had testified it would be that she had not paid the sale consideration

Validity

Contentions of the counsel representing the respondent were correct

Furthermore, burden to establish the sales and the sale mutations, lay upon the beneficiaries thereof, i.e. the petitioners, but they failed to discharge it, and when the same was not discharged it may be stated to constitute fraud

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and the revenue authorities of the area were directed to immediately ensure delivery of subject land's exclusive possession to the respondent, as she was deprived of her land.

Non-mentioning CNICs of the vendor and the vendee in both the deeds and non-bearing of the signature of the vendor/respondent on the subsequent deed

Effect

Plaintiff/Petitioner claimed ownership of half of the share of the disputed property by virtue of dower, which was transferred in the name of the respondent (brother-in-law of petitioner) through two sale deeds based on fraud

Contention of the respondent was that since the marginal witnesses of subsequent deed had been produced along with scribe of both the deeds therefore, requirement of law had been fulfilled

Validity

Under Art. 17(2) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 (Order) in the matters pertaining to financial or future obligations, if reduced into writing, the instrument shall be attested by two men, or one man and two women, so that one may remind the other, if necessary and evidence shall be led accordingly

Such document cannot be used as a document until at least two attesting witnesses have been called for the purpose of proving its execution

None of the marginal witnesses of the initial deed was produced notwithstanding both the witnesses were alive at the time of trial as per the testimony of respondent without advancing any plausible reason

Non-examination of the marginal witnesses would certainly be hit by the mischief of the provision of Art.129(g) of the Order and as such an adverse inference would be drawn that had those witnesses been examined before the Court they would not have supported the stance of respondent

Under Art.79 of the Order non-examination of the marginal witnesses of initial deed despite being alive, the said deed had automatically lost its worth, therefore, the subsequent deed had also crumbled down in the given circumstances, notwithstanding that both the deeds did not contain the CNICs of the vendor and the vendee and even the subsequent deed did not bear the signature of the vendor/respondent

Respondent could not prove his stance through cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence

Although respondent produced scriber/writer of both the deeds, yet a scriber could not be considered as a witness of a document vis-a-vis its marginal witnesses

Findings of the Appellate Court were the result of gross illegality and material illegality

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Execution of gift mutation of entire estate by grandfather of the petitioners in favour of one son excluding his others sons

Locus standi of petitioners to file suit when their fathers, being the deprived sons, did not challenge the transaction in their lifetime and petitioners being legal heirs of the deprived sons also remained silent for a long time

Contention of the petitioners was that their grandfather had died before execution of the gift deed, therefore, their fathers were deprived fraudulently of their legacy

Validity

Fathers/predecessors of the petitioners were aware of the gift mutation in favour of their fourth brother but they did not challenge the same despite the fact that they remained alive for many years after the attestation of mutation

If a transaction was not challenged by the father in his lifetime despite having its knowledge, then his sons, after his death, will lack locus standi to challenge the same on behalf of their deprived father

Petitioners had not denied the knowledge of their fathers about the gift mutation

After the death of donee (benefited son) his legacy was transferred to his sons, which fact was also in the knowledge of the petitioners, but they remained silent for 34 years and filed the suit after a considerable long time, which not only constituted estoppel and waiver on the part of the petitioners, but also exposed them before law of limitation

A stale claim under the law of limitation cannot be enforced legally as the passage of time sets the law of limitation in operation and there can be no exception unless the relaxation is granted by the Limitation Act, 1908, by itself

Petitioners had failed to establish through evidence that the grand predecessor died prior to execution of the gift mutation

Petitioners of the instant petition were proforma defendants before the Trial Court and they were placed and proceeded against ex parte and after passing of the judgment and decree by the Trial Court they joined proceeding at appellate stage but did not file any appeal or application for setting aside decree, which was ex parte to their extent, before the Trial Court, which fact also estopped them to challenge the decree of Trial Court

Civil Revisions were dismissed accordingly.

Respondent/plaintiff claimed that she had settled abroad and petitioners/defendants purchased her property fraudulently on the basis of registered power of attorney executed by her which was not meant for sale

Suit was concurrently decreed in favour of respondent/plaintiff

Validity

Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court below gave undue weightage to the fact that petitioners/defendants could not prove payment of sale consideration when they failed to produce officials in whose presence they claimed to have paid money

Respondent's/plaintiff's own witness acknowledged in his affidavit that suit property was sold and consideration amount was lying with attorney

There was no element of fraud proved by plaintiff as against respondents

When plaintiff/respondent admitted execution of General Power of Attorney she could not seek to set aside sale deed registered on the basis of such Power of Attorney pleading innocence and ignorance about contents of such General Power of Attorney, which were prepared by her own witness

No relation or connivance was established between attorney and petitioners/ defendants regarding execution of General Power of Attorney in favour of attorney

It was not denied that on the strength of General Power of Attorney, suit property was sold to petitioners/ defendants

Petitioners/defendants were required to be protected as transferee of suit property for consideration duly received by attorney under General Power of Attorney on behalf of the Principal (respondent / plaintiff)

Attorney was required to prove his transaction of sale as it was he who was beneficiary of both the transactions, i.e., purported purchase from respondent/ plaintiff along with execution of General Power of Attorney and sale in favour of petitioners/defendants

Attorney also asserted and admitted both the transactions but the case was not examined by two Courts below from such angle at all

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below and dismissed the suit filed by respondent/ plaintiff

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the vires of registered sale deed on the basis of fraud as the respondent/defendant was tenant over suit property and was paying share of produce

Later on defendant disclosed the factum of alleged sale deed and mutation by stating that petitioner had no concern with the suit property

Defendant/respondent contested the suit on factual and legal grounds

Principle of regularity available under Art. 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was attached to the registered sale deed in question as the same was executed and attested by officials in performance of their regular duty

Though, the same was rebuttable but the plaintiff had absolutely failed to rebut the presumption attached to it

Petitioner had not only failed to implead revenue officials as party to the suit but had also failed to bring evidence with regard to alleged connivance of revenue officials in respect of registered sale deed

Therefore, there was nothing before the Court in the shape of evidence or documents to overlook the act of not impleading the revenue officials

In addition to the above, the petitioner had not denied her thumb impression on the disputed sale deed and even did not move any application seeking comparison of the same with the admitted one

Petitioner had only relied upon her solitary statement and no independent witness had been produced in that regard

Moreover, mere assertion of fraud and misrepresentation is not sufficient but the same has to be proved by the person who asserts as such

Petitioner could not substantiate the stance taken up by her and could not chain the links of alleged fraud played against her

As against that, the respondents by producing the marginal witnesses and identifier had successfully fulfilled the requirement of Arts. 17 & 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Apart from the above, it had also been admitted by the petitioner that she earlier instituted a suit on the same subject matter, which was dismissed for non-prosecution, thus, in such scenario, the present suit was barred under O.II, R.2 & O. IX, R. 9(1), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Revision was accordingly dismissed.

Fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings and thus period of limitation would not be an embargo upon a justifiable claim directed against fraud, more particularly if same involves right of a person to inheritance of the property.

Jurisdiction of Chief Settlement Commissioner to investigate the legitimacy of evacuee claim and to reverse the allotment orders obtained through fraud

Scope

Suo motu powers of courts/tribunals to review its orders obtained through fraud

Scope

Responsibility of the authorities to address and rectify the effects of fraud

Contention of the petitioner was that after repeal of the Evacuee Laws in the year 1975 the allotment had become a past and closed transaction, thus, the same could not be cancelled without associating him

Validity

Under S.10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the Chief Settlement Commissioner has the jurisdiction to adjudicate or investigate the legitimacy of evacueeclaims and if fraud is found in the allotment process, he can reverse the allotment order

Transaction had been proven to be bogus and fraudulent, thus, the protection of being a past and closed transaction did not apply to such fraudulent transactions, as the same were subject to review by the competent authorities and the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court could not be invoked to shield verification orders of claims obtained through fraud

Fraud undermines even the most solemn proceedings and any structure based on such fraudulent transactions stands automatically dismantled and any ill-gotten gains achieved by fraudster cannot be validated under any norms of law and any benefit/order obtained through fraud, misrepresentation of true facts cannot assume the status of past andclosed transaction and that illegal orders always remain vulnerable to the legal proceedings of investigation

Petitioner had failed to show that initial allotment was genuine and not fraudulent, thus, the contention of petitioner that he was not associated while cancelling mutation passed in his favour was misconceived on the sole principle that fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings

Preponderance of judicial authority is in favour of conceding such a power to every authority, tribunal or court to suo motu recall or review an order obtained through fraud

This is based on the general principle that fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings, and no party should be allowed to take advantage of their fraud

There is no rational basis for discriminating between the powers available in this behalf to a court of general jurisdiction and those available to a court or tribunal of special or limited jurisdiction, as the impact of fraud is the same in either case

Responsibility to address and rectify the effects of fraud lies with the authority before which the fraud was perpetrated and even a tribunal with limited or special jurisdiction has the power to suo moto recall or review an order obtained by fraud

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Claim of the plaintiff / father was that he was owner of the suit-house, regarding which neither sale was settled nor any was consideration received, rather his signatures over blank papers were deceitfully procured to maneuver the subject instrument(sale-deed), which being outcome of forgery and fraud was liable to be cancelled

Argument of the petitioner / defendant was that suit was instituted with the delay of four years, thus was liable to be dismissed on this score alone

Validity

Any document, which is proved to be result of misrepresentation or fraud cannot be protected as it vitiates even most solemn proceedings

No illegality as well as mis-reading/ non-reading of evidence and jurisdictional defect was committed by the lower Appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment decreeing the suit of plaintiff

Revision, filed by defendant, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff and respondent filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed and mutation, mandatory injunction on the grounds that their predecessor was owner of the suit property but was mentally disordered person and that the defendants/ petitioners got transferred the suit property in their favour fraudulently through registered sale deed

Defendants/petitioners filed contesting written statement, pleaded normal health of vendor and genuinity of sale transaction

Trial Court decreed the suit and appellate Court dismissed the appeal

Validity

Admittedly, on 01.10.2011 the respondents Nos.1 to 10/ plaintiffs filed an application under Ss.29 & 32 of the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001, before the District and Sessions Judge, for declaring predecessor /father of respondents Nos.1 to 10/plaintiffs and respondents Nos.11(i) & (ii) as a mentally disordered person

Respondents Nos.11(i) & (ii) filed contesting reply to the said application

District Court vide order dated 13.12.2012, by accepting the application, appointed respondents Nos.11(i) & (ii) as managers of the person and properties of mentally disordered person

Said application was filed on 01.10.2011, whereas the sale deed No.463/1 was registered on 02.11.2011 and mutation No.2263 was sanctioned on 19.11.2011 i.e. during the pendency of the said application

Matter regarding alienation of suit land by the respondents Nos.11(i) & (ii)/defendants in favour of the petitioner/defendant came before the Court of Protection, who in that regard observed that the validity of the alienation/transaction would be determined by the Civil Court

Moreover, under S.36 of the Ordinance it was mandatory for respondents Nos.11(i) & (ii), being the managers of the mentally disordered person, to file application before the Court of Protection in order to obtain permission for sale/transfer of the suit land of the mentally disordered person but neither any application was filed nor any permission was obtained by the petitioner or respondents Nos.11(i) & (ii)/defendants, from the Court of Protection

Thus, the alienation/transfer of the suit land made by the respondents Nos.11(i) & ii) in favour of the petitioner had no sanctity in the eyes of law

Such proven facts suggested that fraud had been committed by the petitioner in connivance with the managers of the person and properties of mentally disordered person to usurp the suit properties and also to deprive the respondents/plaintiffs from their due legal share from the suit properties

Moreover the petitioner/vendee was under unalienable extraordinary legal obligation to observe all the care and caution and should have made intelligent investigation with regard to the competence of the vendor or his agent or ward of property of a mentally disordered person under the principle of caveat emptor and any disclosure of post transaction flaw in the title of owner, the vendee was precluded to take plea of bona fide purchaser

Furthermore, the application under Ss. 29 & 32 of the Ordinance was filed by the respondents Nos.1 to 10 against respondents Nos. 11(i) & (i) on 01.10.2011 whereas the impugned transactions was made by the respondents Nos.11(i) & (ii) in favour of the petitioner on 02.11.2011 and 19.10.2011 i.e. during the pendency of the application, as such, principle of lis pendens was fully attracted in the case

Concurrent findings of fact did not call for any interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Fraud vitiates the most solemn transaction and in such like position, when question of inheritance is involved, limitation does not run

When foundational transaction is based on fraud and mala fide, the subsequent superstructure built thereon cannot be allowed to stand and ultimately collapses.

Limitation with respect to a void transaction neither runs nor the efflux of time would extinguish the right of the inherence.

Allegation of fraud, cheating and collusiveness raised by a person is required to be proved by him.

Collusion in judicial proceedings is a secret agreement between two person that one should institute a suit against the other in order to obtain a decree of judicial tribunal for some sinister purpose.

In support of his allegations respondent/plaintiff recorded only his self-serving statement, and thus he failed to discharge his initial onus

Respondent / plaintiff challenged authenticity / sanctity for registered document (Tamleek Deed) by leveling allegation of fraud and misrepresentation that the same was procured by petitioner /defendants with the connivance of Sub-Registrar

When allegation of fraud and misrepresentation was level against Sub-Registrar, in such eventuality Province of Punjab and Sub-Registrar who registered the deed, were necessary parties

Neither the Province of Punjab nor the Sub-Registrar were arranged as defendants in the suit which was defective one and decree could not be passed against a person who was not a party to the lis before the Court

Respondent/plaintiff challenged registered Tamleek deed by instituting suit but presumption of truth and sanctity was attached to the registered document

Strong piece of evidence was required to cast aspiration on genuineness of such registered document

Bare words could not dislodge the presumption

Although such presumption was rebuttable but for that a party must produce evidence on the basis of standard set forth by the Supreme Court

High Court set aside concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Except for bald and empty rhetoric no particular, specific nuances of what fraud was practiced, how it was practiced, on whom it was practiced and by what mechanism it was practiced had been recorded in plaint

Particulars of fraud or misrepresentation having not been canvassed, there was no way that initial onus could have shifted on to respondent/defendant to prove gift mutation in question

Burden of proving fraud was on the party alleging it and that too by clear and convincing evidence, particularly where a long period had expired and valuable rights had accrued to the other side

Petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove any fraud, deception or convince regarding gift mutation in question, the subsequent inheritance, mutation on the basis thereof could not have been declared to be of no legal effect, as the same emanated out of the gift mutation in question

High court declined to interfere in well-reasoned concurrent findings recorded by two Courts below, as there was no illegality, irrationality, perversity or excess of jurisdiction involved in the matter

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Bald statement about commission of fraud is of no legal consequences.

Particulars of fraud are to be explicitly stated in pleadings.

Mere efflux of time does not extinguish right of any party.

Any ill-gotten gain achieved by committing fraud cannot be validated under any law.

Concealment of facts by a person having knowledge or belief of facts may constitute fraud but the same must be proved through clear and convincing evidence and the burden of proof of fraud lies on the party which alleges fraud except in a case in which the fraud is floating on the face of record.

Principles relating to commencement of limitation period where a person(or his legal heir)claim to be deprived of the knowledge of his right to sue based on the fraud of the other party stated.

Fraud vitiates the most solemn of proceedings.

Fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings.

Fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings and any ill-gotten gain achieved by committing fraud cannot be validated under any legal norms/laws.

Any ill-gotten gain achieved by committing fraud cannot be validated under any law.

Alleged fraud must be detailed, such that the person alleging fraud must set out all details of fraud that was committed with clarity and certainty.

Fraud had to be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and conduct of parties.

Fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings.

Fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings.

Land bought by petitioner, unknown to him, under attachment due to a decree passed by Family Court in favour of respondent

Question as to whether exclusion of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) barring Ss. 10 & 11 thereof, stood in impediment to petitioner's approach to the Family Court for re-examination of the judgment within the contemplation of S. 12(2), C.P.C. or that he should have asserted his claim of being a bona fide purchaser with consideration through an intervener in civil plenary jurisdiction

Held, that there was no clog on the authority of a Family Court to re-examine its earlier decision with a view to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its jurisdiction and for the said purpose, in the absence of any express prohibition in the Family Courts Act, 1964, it could borrow the procedure from available avenues, chartered by law

In the present case, the Family Court decreed the suit, without a full dress trial merely upon failure of respondent's husband to take special oath, a circumstance that also prevailed with the Appellate Court

Ostensible contest remained restricted between the spouses without slightest breach in their nuptial bond, therefore, in the circumstances, reconsideration/re-examination of the impugned judgment and decree by the Family Court was the only expedient option, conducive to the interest of the contestants

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, impugned judgment was set aside, and it was directed that the petitioner's application under S. 12(2) of C.P.C. before the Additional District Judge shall be deemed to be pending.

Moreover, not only was the fraudster to be named and impleaded as a party to the suit, but the particulars of the fraud were also to be pleaded with clarity and certainty.

Moreover, not only was the fraudster to be named and impleaded as a party to the suit, but the particulars of the fraud were also to be pleaded with clarity and certainty.

Plaintiff claimed that the patwari obtained his thumb impression and signature on certain documents on the pretext of attestation of inheritance mutation, however, he subsequently came to know that impugned sale mutation was sanctioned in favour of the defendant

Trial Court decreed the suit whereas Appellate Court dismissed the appeal

Validity

Perusal of roznamcha revealed that no reference to sale was made therein

Naib Tehsildar who had accorded sanction to the mutation had categorically admitted that the seller had not signed and thumb impressed in his presence

Marginal witnesses to the impugned mutation were examined before the Court, albeit, they had refused to get recorded any statement regarding authenticity or otherwise of the mutation

Preponderance of evidence was surely in favour of the plaintiff, as he was able to produce strong and sufficient evidence in support of his claim, while the defendant had remained unable to produce any solid and credible evidence to substantiate her claims and more so the entire evidence produced by the defendant was not worthy of credence to diminish the evidentiary value of what was produced by the plaintiff

Defendant had desperately failed to prove the sale transaction appearing/embodied in the impugned mutation by producing the witnesses in whose presence the sale price was paid

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Though marginal witnesses of sale transaction of some property could belong to a district other than where property was situated and there was no illegality in such regard

Associating witnesses of some district other than where the property was situated and deal was struck had created doubts

Such doubts further strengthen when defendant admitted to have been Deputy Commissioner of the district where the sale deed was executed and marginal witnesses belonged to

Defendant failed to prove lawful execution of sale deed in his favour

Lower Appellate Court ignored such aspect of the matter and had incorrectly and illegally allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of plaintiff

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.