Qanuni Amdad urdu

FIR darj karwane ka tareeka

FIR Through Session court under section 22A 22B

Affidavit ya bian e halfi Kia hota hai

Women and men ka jismani remand

FIR darj karwane ka tareeka

FIR Through Session court under section 22A 22B

Id card kese unblock karwaia ja sakta hai

Banking court cases

Trade Mark registration

Dukandar, service providers, etc ke khalaf dawa

Sole proprietorship registration

Apna business register karwain

Registery karwana dukan makan plot

Biana ke baad agar buyer ya seller bhag jai

wasiat ya will kese ki jaati ha

decree ke baad decree ki tameel

warasat distribution against Housing societies

Mukhtar nama ya power of attorney

how to sale or buy property and complete other documents

notice of social security

No marriage ya bachelor certificate

Affidavit ya bian e halfi Kia hota hai

Women and men ka jismani remand

Istaghasa ya private complaint ka procedure and case laws

Another judgement about a hiba from a donor

80 years of old and , and donor said in petition that he is 80 years old and ill person physically and mentally and the donees did fraud with him and made a hiba deed and then mutation in their favour.

But court dismiss his suit on the ground of that the plaintiff has miserably fail to prove his case that he did not prove his illness not any medical submit etc and also in cross examination the plaintiff said he didn't signature on the hiba deed but in plaint he said fraudulently signature was taken.

Judgement

Stereo. HCJDA 38

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision No.42701 of 2022

Asadullah Khan Versus Province of Punjab and others

J U D G M E N T

Date of hearing: 11.04.2023

Petitioner(s) by:

Mr. Nauman Qureshi, Advocate

Respondent(s) by: Mr. Qamar Zaman Qureshi, Additional

Advocate General Punjab for respondent

No.1

Rana Muhammad Shafi Khan, Advocate for

respondents No.2 & 3

SHAHID BILAL HASSAN-J: Tersely, the present

petitioner instituted a suit for declaration with consequential

relief against the respondents contending therein that he was

owner of land measuring 53-Kanals 16-Marlas vide register

record of rights for the year 2010-11 situated at Mauza

Wadhoon Tehsil Nowshera Virkan, District Gujranwala; that

the petitioner used to cultivate the above said land; that the date

of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.1936 and he being 80 years of

age has been suffering from various diseases including loss of

mind; that the respondent No.2 is real daughter of the petitioner

and respondent No.3 is his son in law; that the respondent No.3

in connivance with the respondent No.2 and officials of revenue

department illegally and unlawfully got executed gift deed

C.R.No.42701 of 2022

No.399 dated 11.04.2013 and subsequent mutation No.647 was

attested on 18.06.2013; that the petitioner time and again asked

the respondents to get cancelled the said gift deed and mutation

but they refused; hence, the suit. The suit was contested by the

respondents No.2 and 3, whereas the respondent No.1 was

proceeded against ex parte. Divergence in pleadings of the

parties was summed up into issues by the learned trial Court

and evidence of the parties, oral as well as documentary, was

recorded. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court vide

impugned judgment and decree dated 05.04.2022 dismissed suit

of the petitioner. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred an

appeal but result remained the same vide impugned judgment

and decree dated 17.05.2022; hence, the instant revision

petition challenging the vires and legality of the impugned

judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below.

Heard.

Article 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

provides that:-

‘117. Burden of proof: (1) Whoever desires any

Court to give judgment as to any legal right or

liability dependent on the existence of facts which

he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

(2)

When a person is bound to prove the

existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of

proof lies on that person.’

In the present case, the petitioner pleaded and took a stance that

he being 80 years of age had been suffering from various

C.R.No.42701 of 2022

diseases including loss of mind, so he was under bounden duty

in view of the above provision of law to prove the same by

producing cogent, trustworthy and confidence inspiring

evidence but nothing in the shape of medical prescriptions or

medical history was brought on record by him. In this view of

the matter, the learned Courts below have rightly concluded that

the present petitioner has failed to prove his stance with regards

to suffering from various diseases including loss of mind/

memory loss, especially when a week prior to the attestation of

the disputed gift deed Ex.P1/Ex.D2, the present petitioner also

executed a gift deed No.377 dated 04.04.2013 Ex.D1 in favour

of his son Rizwan Asad; therefore, it can safely be concluded

that the petitioner was hale and healthy at the time of executing

of disputed gift deed in favour of the respondent No.2. In this

regard reliance is placed on Khalid Hussain v. Nazir Ahmad

(2021 SCMR 1986), wherein the Apex Court of the country has

held that when a party took a plea and desires the Court to

pronounce judgment as to his legal right dependent on the

existence of facts which he asserted, then the onus to prove

those facts laid on him. Moreover, mere assertion of fraud and

misrepresentation is not sufficient rather the same has to be

proved by leading confidence inspiring evidence. Reliance is

placed on Ghulam Ghaus v. Muhammad Yasin (2009 SCMR

70) as has been referred and relied upon by the learned

appellate Court. As such, the petitioner has not proved that the

C.R.No.42701 of 2022

respondents No.2 and 3 have committed fraud with him by

taking benefit of his purported illness/mind of loss, especially

when the petitioner travelled beyond his pleadings and during

cross examination denied his signature and thumb impressions

over the gift deed Ex.P1, which otherwise were pleaded to have

been obtained fraudulently.

As against this, the respondent No.2 by appearing

in the witness box as D.W.2 has categorically deposed that the

petitioner offered her to gift the suit property, which was

accepted by her and thereafter possession was delivered to her.

The gift deed Ex.P1 was executed by the petitioner in her

favour in presence of marginal witnesses and identifier. The

respondent No.2 also produced marginal witnesses Rizwan

Asad (D.W.1) (who otherwise will be beneficiary if the disputed

gift deed is cancelled and set aside), Atta Ullah (D.W.3) who

fully supported her stance. Muhammad Razzaq D.W.6

identified the petitioner at the time of registration of the

disputed gift deed, who categorically deposed that at that time

the petitioner was hale and healthy. Besides, the respondent

No.2 produced Sub-Registrar Javed Sarwar, who was an

independent witness and deposed in favour of the respondent

No.2. Moreover, Patwari Halqa Khurshid Ahmad D.W.5 has

also deposed in favour of the respondent No.2 and stated that

Asad Ullah appeared before him for issuance of Fard Malkiyat,

he chalked out Rapt No.434 dated 18.04.2013 Ex.D3 and issued

C.R.No.42701 of 2022

Fard. In this view of the matter, the respondent No.2

successfully proved her case on the touchstone of Articles 17

and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The ratio of

judgments reported as Sikandar Hayat v. Sughran Bibi (2020

SCMR 214), Taj Muhammad v. Mst. Munawar Jan (2009

SCMR 598) and Khalid Ahmad v. Abdul Jabbar (2005 SCMR

911), on this point has rightly been appreciated by the learned

appellate Court.

Besides, the fact of delivery of possession has also been

established that the same is with the respondent No.2 since the

execution of the gift deed Ex.P1 in her favour. Even otherwise,

when a donor gifts out property in favour of his near and dear

ones, constructive possession is transferred even without

physical possession. Moreover, presently the respondent No.2

is in possession of the disputed property. The petitioner could

not lead evidence as to how and in what capacity the respondent

No.2 is in possession if the possession was not delivered to her,

because it is not stance of the petitioner that possession of the

disputed property was snatched by respondent No.2.

In addition to the above, the question with regards

to limitation has also rightly been adjudicated upon because it is

bounden duty of the learned trial Court to firstly decide the

question of jurisdiction and limitation, even if the same is not

pleaded by the rival party, as per section 3 of the Limitation

Act, 1908. The suit was instituted after about four years of

C.R.No.42701 of 2022

disputed gift deed No.399 dated 11.04.2013, which is badly

barred by limitation because Article 91 of the Limitation Act,

1908 provides that such suit can be instituted within three years

when the fact entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument

cancelled or set aside becomes known to him. In this case, the

disputed gift deed was a registered document and being a public

document the same is considered a notice to the public at large

including the present petitioner. Even otherwise, it is settled law

that when a Court reaches to a conclusion that the suit is barred

by limitation, there is no need to discuss further merits of the

case, but the learned Courts below even then have pondered

upon and discussed evidence in a minute manner and have

reached to a just conclusion.

Pursuant to the above, it is held that the learned

Courts below have committed no illegality, irregularity and

wrong exercise of jurisdiction, rather after evaluating evidence

on record have reached to a just conclusion that the petitioner/

plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his case through

trustworthy and reliable evidence. The impugned judgments

and decrees do not suffer from any infirmity, rather law on the

subject has rightly been construed and appreciated. As such, the

concurrent findings on record cannot be disturbed in exercise of

revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908. Reliance is placed on judgments reported as

Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014

C.R.No.42701 of 2022

SCMR 1469), CANTONMENT BOARD through Executive

Officer, Cantt. Board Rawalpindi v. IKHLAQ AHMED and

others (2014 SCMR 161), Muhammad Farid Khan v.

Muhammad Ibrahim, etc. (2017 SCMR 679), Muhammad

Sarwar and others v. Hashmal Khan and others (PLD 2022

Supreme Court 13) and Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan (PLD

2022 Supreme Court 21) wherein it has been held that :-

‘There is a difference between the misreading,

non-reading and misappreciation of the evidence

therefore, the scope of the appellate and revisional

jurisdiction must not be confused and care must be

taken for interference in revisional jurisdiction

only in the cases in which the order passed or a

judgment rendered by a subordinate Court is

found perverse or suffering from a jurisdictional

error or the defect of misreading or non-reading of

evidence and the conclusion drawn is contrary to

law. This court in the case of Sultan Muhammad

and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others

(2010 SCMR 1630) held that the concurrent

findings of three courts below on a question of

fact, if not based on misreading or non-reading of

evidence and not suffering from any illegality or

material irregularity effecting the merits of the

case are not open to question at the revisional

stage.’

Further in judgment reported as Salamat Ali and others v.

Muhammad Din and others (PLJ 2023 SC 8), it has invariably

been held that:

C.R.No.42701 of 2022

‘Needless to mention that a revisional Court

cannot upset a finding of fact of the Court(s) below

unless that finding is the result of misreading, nonreading, or perverse or absurd appraisal of some

material evidence. The revisional Court cannot

substitute the finding of the Court(s) below with its

own merely for the reason that it finds its own

finding more plausible than that of the Court(s)

below.’

For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition in

hand comes to naught and the same stands dismissed. No order

as to the costs.

(Shahid Bilal Hassan)

Judge

Approved for reporting.

Judge

Another judgement about Hiba in which Lahore High court decided an issue .

This judgement Father/donor recorded statement before trial court that he is fully in his sense and free will giving his house to her daughter in hiba. Others daughters and sons contested the suit. But statement of Father in favour of his one daughter helped her win the case and trial court rejected all cases against the daughter and high court upheld the decision.

UDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision No.19610 of 2021

Mst. Shahnaz Shafiq and 2 others

VERSUS

Mst. Gulnar Khalid and 4 others

J U D G M E N T

Date of Hearing: 20.05.2022

Petitioner(s):

Mr. Zafar Abbas Khan, Advocate as well as

in connected C.R.No.24020 of 2021

Respondent(s):

Mr. Qasim Hassan Buttar, Advocate for

respondent No.1/plaintiff and in

C.R.No.10730 of 2021

Mr. Zawar Ahmad Sheikh, Advocate for

respondent No.2/petitioner in connected

C.R.No.10730 of 2021 &

C.R.No.12562/2021

Sahabzada Muzaffar Ali, Advocate for

Lahore Development Authority

SHAHID BILAL HASSAN-J: This single judgment will

dispose of the captioned revision petition as well as connected

C.R.No.24020 of 2021, C.R.No.10730 of 2021 and

C.R.No.12562 of 2021, as in all, common question of law and

facts are involved as well as one and the same judgments and

decrees have been called into question.

Facts, in precision, are as such that respondent

No.1 instituted a suit for declaration against the present

petitioners and remaining respondents No.2 to 5 in the present

C.R.No.19610 of 2021

revision petition. The petitioners also instituted a suit for

declaration with permanent injunction against the respondents

whereby the petitioner No.1 sought cancellation of gift deed

bearing document No.1878, Book No.1, Volume No.2099 dated

02.04.2013 (on the basis of which the respondent No.1

instituted her suit), alleging therein that the same was obtained

through fraud and misrepresentation by the respondent No.1

and others. The respondent No.2 also filed a separate suit in this

regard. Rival parties contested each other’s suit. On 05.11.2014,

donor/father of the parties namely Shafique A. Siddiqui

appeared before the learned trial Court and recorded his

detailed and comprehensive statement wherein he categorically,

unambiguously and unequivocally stated that he has executed

gift deed of the suit property in favour of his daughter Gulnar

Khalid, respondent No.1, with his free will and without any

coercion and undue influence as well as in his complete senses.

After recording of the said statement, the respondent Gulnar

Khalid made an application under Order XII, Rule 6, Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 for passing a judgment and decree in her

favour but the learned trial Court dismissed the said application,

who filed revision petition, which was allowed and the learned

trial Court was directed to decide the contention of the

respondent Gulnar Khalid in the light of the statement of her

father/donor Shafique A. Siddiqui. On the other hand, the

present respondent No.2 namely Rubina Amjad filed a writ

C.R.No.19610 of 2021

petition bearing No.131333 of 2018 before this Court, which

was dismissed. Therefore, in the light of the direction of the

learned revisional Court and this Court, the learned trial Court

decided the application under Order XII, Rule 6 read with

Order XV, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and decreed

the suit for declaration instituted by the respondent No.1 titled

“Gulnar Khalid v. Shahnaz Shafique, etc.”, whereas the plaints

of suits instituted by the present petitioners Shahnaz Shafique,

etc. and Mst. Rubina Amjad, were rejected under Order VII,

Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 vide impugned

orders/judgment and decrees dated 10.03.2020. Hence, the

captioned revision petition as well as connected C.Rs. (detailed

above) calling into question the validity and vires of impugned

orders rejecting the plaints of suits instituted by the present

petitioners and respondent No.2/Mst. Rubina Amjad and

decreeing the suit of the respondent No.1/Mst. Gulnar Khalid.

Heard.

Rule 6 of Order XII, Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 provides:-

„6. Judgment on admissions. Any party may, at

any stage of a suit, where admissions of fact have

been made, either on the pleadings, or otherwise,

apply to the Court for such judgment or order as

upon such admissions he may be entitled to,

without waiting for the determination of any other

question between the parties; and the Court may

C.R.No.19610 of 2021

upon such application make such order, or give

such judgment, as the Court may think just.‟

Rule 1 of Order XV, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

enunciates:-

„Parties not at issue. Where at the first hearing of

a suit it appears that the parties are not at issue on

any question of law or of fact, the Court may at

once pronounce judgment.‟

In the present case there is no denial to the factum that the

disputed house was owned by Shafique A. Siddiqui (deceased),

father of the parties, who gifted out the same to respondent

No.1 namely Gulnar Khalid, through gift deed bearing

document No.1878, Book No.1, Volume No.2099 dated

02.04.2013 and when the respondent No.1 instituted a suit for

declaration, obviously, on refusal of her entitlement, on the

basis of said document, the said Shafique A. Siddiqui, the

donor, appeared before the learned trial Court on 05.11.2014

and in a categorical, unambiguous and in a vivid way recorded

his detailed statement on oath in favour of respondent No.1 and

the learned Courts below have reproduced the said statement of

the deceased Shafique A. Siddiqui in the impugned judgments

in verbatim. When, the position remained as such, the learned

trial Court, on moving an application under Order XII, Rule 6

read with Order XV, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in

exercise of discretion, vested upon it, may pass a judgment or

order, as it thinks fit, as has been referred above, but the learned

C.R.No.19610 of 2021

trial Court declined the request of the respondent No.1 on

26.11.2016, who challenged the order by filing revision

petition, which was accepted on 11.12.2017 and the matter was

remanded to the learned trial Court with a direction to decide

the request under Order XII, Rule 6 read with Order XV, Rule

1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and W.P.No.131333 of 2018,

filed by Mst. Robina Amjad against the said revisional order

was dismissed by this Court with the observation that:-

„The father of the petitioner in his statement

categorically stated that he gifted the suit property

to his daughter while putting his signature and

thumb impression on the order sheet. The

presumption of truth is attached to the order

sheet.‟

It is not case, here, that Shafique A. Siddiqui

appeared before the learned trial Court only once before the

learned trial Court rather after recording his categorical detailed

statement on 05.11.2014, he again appeared on 09.04.2016 in

presence of learned counsel for the parties and the learned trial

Court, on the said date, cross questioned him in order to

ascertain mental condition and soundness of his mind and

observed in the order that:-

„So, defendant No.5 was cross-examined by the

court and he spoke about his name, parentage,

correct address and profession as Electrical

Engineering and still MD at ICC private, Limited.

The mental condition of defendant No.5 has been

C.R.No.19610 of 2021

found correct. He is a man of sound mind, hale

and hearty up to the mark. Counsel for the

defendant No.4 is hereby directed to clear position

of Mst. Rubina Amjad on the next date of hearing.‟

The said observation recorded by the learned trial Court had not

been challenged before any forum at the relevant time and even

the petitioner(s) did not move any application before the

competent forum under Mental Health Ordinance, 2001 seeking

declaration of unsoundness or soundness of Shafique A.

Siddiqui, because oral stance has no value, especially when the

said person while appearing before the learned trial Court twice

on different dates with a gap of almost two years i.e. firstly on

05.11.2014 and secondly on 09.04.2016, did not seem to be of

unsound mind. Reliance is placed on Arshad Ehsan v. Sheikh

Ahsan Ghani and 2 others (PLJ 2007 Lahore 144), wherein

this Court has held:-

„6.

There is no cavil to the proposition that the

only forum competent to declare a person as

“mentally disordered person” is one available

under Mental Health Ordinance, 2001 and the

same has overriding effect and no other Court

could determine or for that matter grant any

declaration, hence, the suit filed by the petitioners

to this extent was barred by law.‟

In addition to the above, it is worth mentioning

here that in his statement dated 05.11.2014, Shafique A.

Siddiqui in a categorical manner stated that he is affectionate

C.R.No.19610 of 2021

and kind father towards his children and he has already

transferred valuable properties in the names of his sons and

daughters and has gifted out the disputed house in lieu of

services of his widowed daughter Gulnar Khalid (plaintiff).

This part of the statement of the deceased Shafique A. Siddiqui

has not been denied by the present petitioners or other

respondents.

So far as the objection that the registered gift deed

was written on a non-stamp paper and adhesive stamps were

pasted is concerned, after admission on the part of the deceased

Shafique A. Siddiqui by appearing before the learned trial

Court, the said objection loses its significance. In judgment

reported as G.R. Syed v. Muhammad Afzal (2007 SCMR 433),

the Apex Court of the country while upholding the judgment

rendered by a Division Bench of this Court reported as (PLD

2007 Lahore 93) has held:-

„7.

It is a settled proposition of law that under

Order XII, rule 6 of C.P.C. the Court is

empowered to pass a judgment on the basis of

admission of facts by the addressee made by the

parties to their pleadings, at any stage of the

proceedings. The learned High Court to adjudge

the controversy between the parties placed

reliance upon the judgment of this Court in case of

Amir Bibi v. Muhammad Khushid and others 2003

SCMR 1261, and applying the rules laid down

therein concluded that as the admission of the

C.R.No.19610 of 2021

petitioner was specific, clear, unambiguous,

categorical and definite, therefore, the trial Court

had rightly granted decree under Order XII, rule 6

of C.P.C. As such under the circumstances,

reiterating the principle laid down in the reported

judgment we are of the opinion that the impugned

judgment admits of no interference.‟

In view of the above discussion, it can safely be

held that the learned Courts below have proceeded with the case

as per mandate of law and have not committed any material

illegality and irregularity while passing the impugned orders,

judgments and decrees warranting interference by this Court in

exercise of supervisory revisional jurisdiction under section

115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, rather after passing a

decree in favour of the respondent No.1, in her suit for

declaration on the basis of registered gift deed, after categorical

admission by Shafique A. Siddique (deceased), the suits

instituted by the petitioners in the present revision petition and

connected petitions, lacks locus standi and cause of action, so

the plaints in the said suits have rightly been rejected by

invoking powers under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908. The findings recorded by the learned Courts

below, being well reasoned and up to the dexterity as well as

proper and judicious appreciation of law on the subject, are

upheld and maintained

C.R.No.19610 of 2021

For the foregoing reasons and while placing

reliance on the judgments (supra), the revision petition in hand

as well as connected C.R.No.24020 of 2021, C.R.No.10730 of

2021 and C.R.No.12562 of 2021, having come to naught and

devoid of any force stand dismissed. No order as to the costs.

SHAHID BILAL HASSAN

Judge

Announced in open Court on _________.

Judge

Approved for reporting.

Judge

M.A.Hassan

Agar beti apna share claim nahi karti tu kia us ke ghar wale dawa kar sakte

Beti ka bap ki property main share

Khulla ke sath haq mahar kese wapis mil sakta

Dafa 144 kia hai , kese nafaz hoti hai, or dafa 144 khalaf warzi per saza kitni hu gi.

Value of Stamp Paper, astamp paper kia hai ? Stamp paper kitne ka lagana hai. Stamp paper per likhna kio zaroori hai

Harjana ka dawa High court ne 10 lakh harjana decree kar dia.

Nani ne bache ki custody baap se jeet li

FIR darj karwane ka tareeka

Hiba and Tamleek process And case laws

Marne wale ki Gratuity ki Taqseem kese hu gi

FIR Through Session court under section

22A 22B

Warasat Case laws in Pakistan

Child custody if mother remarried in Pakistan

249A Bari acquittal ka process

Khawateen Apna warasti Haq bghair Case ke kese Hasil kar Saktien hain. How Can take Women their inheritance Property without case.

Wife per susral wale agar mar peet karain tu karwai kese hu gi.

Blocked Id card kese unblock

Acquittal in Jail appeal

Immigration ki black list se kese nikla ja sakta

Pension Rules and regulations after death

Agar dada ko party na banaya hu tu family court dada ki property sale nahi kar sakti

Process of Court notices kese serve hote hain .Notices ka jawab nahi aya yaktarfa ( exparties) decree set aside.

72 years purana intiqal challenge, Apni maa ka hisa lene ke liye

Tafteesh ya investigation

Affidavit ya bian e halfi Kia hota hai

Women and men ka jismani remand

Pension rules in Pakistan after death. Pension ki taqseem kese hu gi.

Court marriage ka Procedure In Pakistan

Father is Natural guardian and if he run away abroad with minor , Mother cant take legal action against father.

FIR Through Session court under section 22A 22B

Id card kese unblock karwaia ja sakta hai

Banking court cases

Trade Mark registration

Dukandar, service providers, etc ke khalaf dawa

Sole proprietorship registration

Apna business register karwain

Registery karwana dukan makan plot

Biana ke baad agar buyer ya seller bhag jai

wasiat ya will kese ki jaati ha

decree ke baad decree ki tameel

warasat distribution against Housing societies

Mukhtar nama ya power of attorney

Documents needed to overseas Pakistani and their verification

notice of social security

Case laws about cyber Crime

No marriage ya bachelor certificate

Haqmahar mojal or ghair mojal Case laws

Registery karwane ka Tareeqa

Jhooti FIR ke khalaf 182 ki karwai ka process

Correction in marriage certificate

Case law on specific performance (tameel e mukhtas)

Dismissal of civil case order 7 rule 11

Intra Court Appeal Process

Sole proprietorship registration

Ijra ya execution

Trademark registration

Wasiat ( will )Property Process and case laws

How to sue a Doctor