fraud must be specifically alleged, with clear and detailed particulars provided. Courts consistently maintain that general allegations of fraud, regardless of their severity or the strength of the language used, are not sufficient. Specific details about the fraudulent acts, including dates and particulars, must be included in the pleadings. This ensures that all relevant facts are presented and allows for a proper legal examination of the claims. General or vague assertions of fraud do not meet the necessary legal standard for proving such claims.|People also ask What is the law for fraud in Pakistan? What is the misrepresentation law in Pakistan? What happens when there is fraud in a contract?

The principle established by law is that fraud must be specifically alleged, with clear and detailed particulars provided. Courts consistently maintain that general allegations of fraud, regardless of their severity or the strength of the language used, are not sufficient. Specific details about the fraudulent acts, including dates and particulars, must be included in the pleadings. This ensures that all relevant facts are presented and allows for a proper legal examination of the claims. General or vague assertions of fraud do not meet the necessary legal standard for proving such claims.

قانون کے مطابق، جعلسازی کا الزام مخصوص طور پر لگایا جانا چاہیے اور اس کی تفصیلات واضح طور پر بیان کی جانی چاہئیں۔ عدالتوں نے ہمیشہ یہ موقف اختیار کیا ہے کہ جعلسازی کے عمومی الزامات، چاہے وہ کتنے ہی مضبوط الفاظ میں ہوں، کافی نہیں ہوتے۔ جعلسازی کے الزامات میں شامل تمام تفصیلات، جیسے کہ تاریخیں اور مخصوص معلومات، فراہم کرنا ضروری ہے تاکہ الزامات کا صحیح طریقے سے جائزہ لیا جا سکے۔ عمومی یا مبہم الزامات جعلسازی ثابت کرنے کے لیے کافی نہیں سمجھے جاتے۔

**کیس کی کہانی:**

یہ کیس سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان میں زیر سماعت تھا، جس میں اپیل کنندگان، عامر افضال اور ان کے بھائی، نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل دائر کی تھی۔ لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے دو ماتحت عدالتوں کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیا تھا۔

**پس منظر:**

یہ مقدمہ ایک رہائشی پراپرٹی کے بارے میں تھا جو میجر (ر) محمد افضال نے 1959 میں خریدی تھی۔ محمد افضال نے 1962 میں اپنے بچوں کو زبانی تحفہ دیا، اور اس تحفے کو 1974 میں ایک رجسٹرڈ یادداشت (Memorandum) کے ذریعے تحریری شکل دی گئی۔ بعد ازاں، پراپرٹی کا انتقال ماڈل ٹاؤن کوآپریٹو ہاؤسنگ سوسائٹی میں اپیل کنندگان کے نام پر کر دیا گیا۔

محمد افضال کی وفات 2005 میں ہوئی، جس کے بعد ان کے وارثوں نے اس پراپرٹی کی تقسیم کے لیے عدالت سے رجوع کیا۔ انہوں نے یہ بھی دعویٰ کیا کہ یادداشت جعلی ہے اور انہیں پراپرٹی سے بے دخل کیا گیا ہے۔

**عدالتی فیصلے:**

1. **ابتدائی اور اپیل کورٹ:** ان عدالتوں نے یادداشت کی سچائی کو تسلیم کیا اور مدعیوں کی درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا۔

2. **ہائی کورٹ:** ہائی کورٹ نے اس بات پر غور کیا کہ یادداشت کے نفاذ کا بوجھ اپیل کنندگان پر تھا اور انہوں نے اس بوجھ کو پورا کرنے میں ناکامی کا اعتراف کیا۔ ہائی کورٹ نے یہ فیصلہ کیا کہ یادداشت جعلی ہے اور اس پر کارروائی کو مسترد کر دیا۔

**سپریم کورٹ کی تشخیص:**

سپریم کورٹ نے ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیتے ہوئے کہا کہ ہائی کورٹ نے غلط طریقے سے ریویژنل اختیار کا استعمال کیا۔ سپریم کورٹ نے نوٹ کیا کہ مدعیوں کی جانب سے جعلسازی کے الزامات عمومی نوعیت کے تھے اور ان کی تفصیلات فراہم نہیں کی گئی تھیں۔ علاوہ ازیں، یادداشت کے اصل دستاویز اور متعلقہ شواہد کو درست طریقے سے زیر غور نہیں لایا گیا تھا۔

**نتیجہ:**

سپریم کورٹ نے ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیتے ہوئے ماتحت عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کو برقرار رکھا۔

**ججز:**

- جسٹس سید منصور علی شاہ

- جسٹس جمال خان مندکھیل

- جسٹس عطاء الرحمان من اللہ

THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Present:

Mr.Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah

Mr.Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail

Mr.Justice Athar Minallah

CIVIL APPEAL NO.648 OF 2022

AND CMA 5213 OF 2022

(Appeal against judgment and decree dated

06.05.2022 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore

passed in Civil Revision No.224476 of 2018)

Aamir Afzal and another

…

Appellants

Versus

S. Akmal (deceased) through LRs

and two others

…

Respondents

For the appellant:

Mr. Uzair Karamat Bhandari, ASC

For the respondents:

Mr.Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi, ASC

Mr. Muhammad Ejaz Jamal, ASC

Mr. Arshad Ali Ch., AOR.

Date of hearing:

17.01.2024

JUDGMENT

Athar Minallah, J.- The appellants have assailed the judgment dated

06.05.2022 of the High Court whereby concurrent findings recorded by

two competent courts were set aside while exercising revisional

jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code,

1908 (‘CPC’).

The dispute was regarding the residential property (‘property’)

described in the plaint filed by the respondents. The property was

purchased by Major (rtd.) Muhammad Afzal (‘predecessor-in-interest’)

on 15.10.1959. The appellants are siblings and they were born out of

the second marriage of the predecessor-in-interest. The second wife had

passed away during the life time of the predecessor-in-interest.

Respondent No.1, S. Akmal, was born out of the marriage contracted

with the first wife i.e respondent No.2, Ms. Saleha Afzal. The

CA-648 of 2022.doc

predecessor-in-interest passed away on 18.02.2005. The latter had

executed a Memorandum of oral gift (‘Memorandum’), dated

04.02.1974, and it was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Lahore

on 05.02.1974. It was recorded in the Memorandum that the property

was orally gifted in favour of the appellants in 1962 and the respective

shares/portions were also expressly mentioned therein. The

Memorandum was produced at the trial and it was exhibited as Exh.P-

23. The original Memorandum and its certified copies were also

produced. Pursuant to the execution of the Memorandum, the property

was transferred in the record of Model Town Cooperative Housing

Society (‘Society’) pursuant to separate applications which had been

filed by the predecessor-in-interest on 22.11.1975. The Society issued

separate letters and share certificates in favour of the appellants vide

letter dated 05.01.1976 and 04.01.1976 respectively. The appellants

were recorded as owners of the property. The predecessor-in-interest,

vide his letter, dated 29.08.1998, addressed to the Society, had

acknowledged the factum of gift in favour of the appellants. As would be

explained later, this letter was produced during the trial and a copy of

the same was kept on record after the Court had examined the original

document produced by the witness, who had entered the witness-box

on behalf of the Society. It appears from the record that the relationship

between respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 and the predecessor-in-interest

remained strained and acrimonious. However, the predecessor-ininterest had gifted two houses in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff

No.1 situated in Islamabad. After the predecessor-in-interest passed

away, the respondents filed a suit for partition of the property on

30.03.2005. The respondents had also made a reference in the plaint to

the property having been gifted in favour of the appellants. The suit was

contested by the appellants and specific reference was made to the

CA-648 of 2022.doc

Memorandum. Subsequently, on 25.06.2005 the respondents filed a

suit seeking declaration, injunction and cancellation of the

Memorandum. The subsequent suit was filed on 25.06.2005 and the

appeal before us has arisen there from. The trial Court, vide order

dated 21.06.2011, had framed nine issues out of the divergent

pleadings and on conclusion of the trial the suit was dismissed vide

judgment and decree dated 10.06.2017. The appeal filed by the

respondents on 03.07.1997 did not succeed and it was dismissed by the

appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 21.06.2018. The

concurrent findings of fact and law rendered by two competent courts

were challenged before the High Court, invoking its revisional

jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the

concurrent findings vide the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2022.

We have heard the learned counsels and with their able

assistance perused the record placed before us.

The respondents had sought a declaration regarding the

Memorandum and its cancellation was also prayed for. It was pleaded

in the plaint that they were in possession of the property and that they

had been dispossessed. It was also asserted in the plaint that after the

filing of the suit for partition, the Memorandum was fraudulently

prepared so as to deprive the appellants of their hereditary rights. It

was pleaded that the Memorandum was fabricated. A plain reading of

the plaint shows that the assertion of fraud was of a general nature and

the particulars thereof had not been stated. During the trial, the initial

burden of proving the factum of fraud or fabrication could not be

discharged by the respondents. It is noted that 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. The initial burden to prove

that the Memorandum of gift was forged and fabricated was on the

CA-648 of 2022.doc

respondents. The 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 is not disputed that the transfer of shares by the

Society in the name of the appellants was not challenged by the

respondents. It is also not disputed that the appellants were minors

when the oral gift was made in their favour by the predecessor-ininterest in 1962. The respondents had made a reference to the property

having been gifted in favour of the appellants in the earlier suit filed for

seeking partition. They had asserted in the subsequent suit that the

factum of execution and registration of the Memorandum came to their

knowledge during the trial of the earlier suit. The trial Court, after

proper appreciation of the evidence brought on record, dismissed the

suit and the appeal was also dismissed subsequently.

The High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction

under section 115 of the CPC, has set aside the concurrent findings of

facts and law rendered by two competent Courts. In the opinion of the

High Court, the onus of proving the execution of the Memorandum was

on the appellants and they had failed in discharging such onus. It is

noted that rule 4 of order VI of the CPC explicitly provides that in all

cases in which the party pleading relies, inter alia, on fraud, shall state

in the pleadings particulars with dates and items if necessary. It is

settled law that the parties are required to plead all facts that may

constitute a cause of action for any relief or in defence, as the case may

be. A party which alleges a fact has to prove the same and the

ingredients of fraud have to be narrated and stated by giving particulars

thereof. It is settled law that fraud must be specifically alleged and its

particulars unequivocally stated. This Court has consistently held that

general allegations, however strong the words may be, are insufficient to

CA-648 of 2022.doc

constitute an assertion of fraud and that vague allegations in a plaint

are not enough.1 In the case before us the assertion regarding fraud

was of a general nature and no particulars had been stated in the

plaint. The concurrent findings had correctly appreciated that the

general allegation of fraud was insufficient. Moreover, the initial burden

was definitely not discharged by the respondents so that the onus could

have shifted to the appellants. This crucial aspect appears to have

escaped the attention of the High Court. The learned counsel for the

appellants has rightly pointed out that the reliance by the High Court

on the judgment rendered by this Court in Fareed’s case2 was

misplaced because it was distinguishable. The facts of the case before

us are distinguishable because, at the time of making of the oral gift in

1962, the appellants were minors. The observations of the High Court

regarding the evidentiary value of the letter dated 29.08.1998 addressed

by the predecessor-in -interest to the Society are not sustainable

because they are not in consonance with the record of the trial Court.

The letter was not disputed because it was relied upon by the

respondents themselves. The original was produced by the witness who

had entered the witness-box on behalf of the Society. It was an admitted

document and the High Court was not justified in forming an opinion

that the two competent courts could not have considered and relied

upon it. The concurrent findings were based on proper appreciation of

the evidence brought on record and the conclusions were drawn on the

touchstone of the principle of preponderance of evidence. The

concurrent findings did not suffer from any material irregularity nor

misreading or non-reading of the evidence. The High Court was,

therefore, not justified in setting aside the concurrent findings of the

1 Mst. Sahib Noor v. Haji Ahmed (1988 SCMR 1703)

Muhammad Umar v. Muqarab Khan and another (1968 SCMR 983)

Ghulam Shabbir v. Mst. Nur Begum and others (PLD 1977 SC 75)

Tom Boevey Barrett v. African Products, Ltd. (AIR 1928 PC 261)

Fareed and others v. Muhammad Tufail and another (2018 SCMR 139)

CA-648 of 2022.doc

two competent courts in the circumstances while exercising revisional

jurisdiction.

It is settled law that while exercising jurisdiction under Article

115 of the CPC the High Court has to first satisfy itself: (i) that the order

of the subordinate court is within its jurisdiction, (ii) that the case is

one in which the court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and that in

exercising jurisdiction that court has not acted illegally, that is, in

breach of some provisions of law, or with material irregularity by

committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is

material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision.3 Section 115

applies only to cases in which no appeal lies, and where the legislature

has provided no right of appeal. The manifest intention of the legislature

is that the order of the trial court, right or wrong, shall be final, except

in specific circumstances. It is, therefore, obvious that unless the case

is not covered under Section 115 of the CPC and the High Court was

satisfied in this regard, then in such a case no power could be exercised

to interfere simply because it differs, however profoundly, with the

conclusions of the subordinate court regarding questions of law and

facts. The scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of

the CPC is limited in relation to concurrent findings of the competent

courts. The exceptions to this rule are when the findings are based on

insufficient evidence, misreading of evidence, non consideration of

material evidence, patent errors of law, consideration of inadmissible

evidence, abuse of jurisdiction, when the conclusions drawn are

perverse and based on conjectural presumptions. The erroneous

decisions of fact are ordinarily not revisable and the mere fact that the

High Court may differ on a question of fact or mixed question of law and

3 Kanwal Nain and others v. Fateh Khan and others (PLD 1983 SC 53)

Umar Dad Khan and another v. Tila Muhammad Khan and others (PLD 1970 SC 288)

CA-648 of 2022.doc

fact is not a valid ground for interfering with concurrent findings.

Moreover, the concurrent findings recorded on the basis of evidence is

not susceptible to further review to justify interference by the High

Court in revisional jurisdiction. The interference by a High Court in

such jurisdiction would not be justified on the ground that reappraisal

of evidence might suggest another view of the matter unless there has

been a gross misreading of evidence and material evidence was

ignored.4 In the case before us the High Court, while setting aside the

concurrent findings, appears to have excluded from its consideration

the principles enunciated by this Court while exercising original

jurisdiction.

For the above reasons, this appeal is allowed and the

impugned judgment of the High Court, dated 06.05.2022, is set aside.

The listed CMA is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

Judge

Islamabad

17.01.2024

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

M. Azhar Malik/Rameen Moin*

4 Mai Rashid Beg v. Rehmat Ullah Khan and others (PLD 2001 SC 443)

Khan Mir Daud Khan and others v. Mahrullah and others (PLD 2001 SC 67)

Suleman v. Mst. Zeenat Jan and others (PLD 2003 SC 362)

Imam Din and others v. Bashir Ahmed and others (PLD 2005 SC 418)

Asmatullah v. Amanat Ullah thr. LRs. (PLD 2008 SC 155)

Atiq ur Rehman and another v. Muhammad Amin (PLD 2006 SC 309)

Ahmed Nawaz Khan v. Muhammad Jaffar Khan and another (2010 SCMR 984)

Administrator Thal Development and others v. Ali Muhammad (2012 SCMR 730)

Noor Muhammad and others v. Mst. Azmat-e-Bibi 2012 SCMR 1373

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.