AMANAT ALI (deceased) Versus Mst. KHURSHID BIBI (deceased)

ABID HUSSAIN CHATTHA, J.--- This Judgment shall decide the titled Civil Revisions since the same are directed against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Lahore as well as Judgment and Decree dated 23.12.2024 along with impugned Order dated 23.12.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby, suit for declaration with possession of Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (the "Respondents" ) against the Petitioners and the other Respondents was concurrently decreed.

2.Civil Revision No. 5067/2025 is filed by the Petitioners whose predecessor-in-interest is the donee of the suit property, whereas, Civil Revisions Nos. 18684 and 18309 of 2025 have been instituted by the subsequent purchasers.

3.Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the impugned Judgments are not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reasons that no particulars of fraud in terms of Order VI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the "C.P.C." ) were pleaded in the plaint; the execution of documents in terms of fixation of thumb impressions thereon is admitted by the Respondents; the possession was not specifically claimed as part of the relief; the initial onus of proof was not discharged by the Respondents so as to shift the burden of proof upon the Petitioners and the other Respondents; the male members of the Respondents accompanied them at the time of execution of the impugned documents providing them independent advice, as such, executed documents could not be disowned by them; evidence on record was misread and non-read while decreeing the suit of the Respondents; and the suit property had been lawfully transferred to the other Respondents as bona fide purchasers for value without notice whose rights and interests in the suit property could not be infringed. Reliance is placed on cases titled, "Nasir Ali v. Muhammad Asghar" (2022 SCMR 1054); "Liaquat Ali and another v. Col. (Retd.) Akhtar Sultan" (PLD 2014 Sindh 78); "Shehwaar and 2 others v. Muhammad Riaz and others" (2018 YLR 1938); "Muhammad Faisal Sultan and another v. Muhammad Ajmal through his Legal Heirs" (2018 CLC 1782); "Mehmood Ahmad and 8 others v. Malik Abdul Ghafoor" (PLD 2011 Lahore 522); "Mst. Saadia Andaleeb v. Mst. Farzana Zia and 5 others" (PLD 2019 Islamabad 280); "Ghulam Farid and others v. Muhammad Bakhsh and another" (2008 SCMR 1201); Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another" (2014 SCMR 1469); Mst. Ishrat Parveen and another v. Syed Azhar Ali and others (PLD 2024 Sindh 289); "Kh. Muhammad Fazil v. Mumtaz Munawar Khan Niazi (deceased) through L.Rs. and another" (2024 SCMR 1059); "Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Collector, Badin v. Haji Abdul Shakoor and others" (1997 SCMR 919); "P.M. Amer v. Qabool Muhammad Shah and 4 others" (1999 SCMR 1049); "Muhammad Wahid and another v. Nasrullah and another" (2016 SCMR 179); "Muhammad Arif v. Additional District and Sessions Judge Kasur and others" (NLR 2000 Civil 621); "Muhammad Tariq and others v. Amjad Ali and others" (PLD 2018 Lahore 502); "Taj Muhammad v. Muhammad Akram" (NLR 1993 AC (Civil) 760); "Muhammad Salim v. Inayatullah" (PLD 1983 Lahore 215); "State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Mst. Zainab Khatoon and others" (NLR 1987 SCJ 3); "Malik Muhammad Waryam v. Mst. Shahnaz Masood" (1983 CLC 109); "Suleman Khan and 2 others v. Nazar Khan and another" (1983 CLC 1502); "Mukhtaran Bibi v. Shabbiran Bibi" (2004 CLC 374); "Bashir Ahmad and another v. Khurshid Ali through Legal Heirs and others" (2005 YLR 2112); "Noor Muhammad v. Jamal Din and others" (2000 CLC 305) and "Taj Muhammad Khan through L.Rs. and another v. Mst. Munawar Jan and 2 others" (2009 SCMR 598) .

4.Conversely, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that alleged fraud was established; the initial onus of proof was successfully discharged which shifted upon the Petitioners and the other Respondents, whereafter, the Petitioners remained fail to independently prove the gift transactions in terms of its ingredients i.e. offer, acceptance and possession; the Respondents were Parda Nashin ladies which fact was duly established; the question of independent advice did not rise when the contents of the documents were never read out to them including the male members accompanying them; the suit property was transferred to the subsequent purchasers during the pendency of litigation including status quo order; and it has been rightly concluded that the other Respondents as subsequent purchasers were not bona fide purchasers for value without notice. Hence, the impugned Judgments are not liable to be interfered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance is placed on cases titled "Muhammad Ejaz and 2 others v. Mst. Khalida Awan and another" (2010 SCMR 342) and " Mst. Sadiqan Begum v. Muhammad Siddique" (2025 CLC 1158) .

5.Arguments heard. Record perused.

6.The record reflects that the Respondents are real sisters of Amanat Ali, predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners along with another sister, namely, Saleeman Bibi. The suit property belonged to their deceased father measuring 61 Kanals and 15 Marlas duly identified in the plaint who died in the year 1997-98, whereafter, his legal heirs became owners in possession thereof. The Respondents alleged that in the year 2003, their brother, Amanat Ali, predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners invited them to the village for incorporation of inheritance mutation as per their respective shares. Respondent No. 1 with her son and Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 with their husbands went there where Amanat Ali in connivance with the then Halqa Patwari brought a register and stamp papers and upon their asking, they affixed thumb impressions thereon given the relationship of trust between them as illiterate Parda Nashin ladies. It was also alleged that male members are also illiterate persons who affixed their thumb impressions as they were required to do so. On 17.08.2005, one of their sister, namely, Saleeman Bibi sold her whole share of ancestral property, whereafter, the Respondents obtained fresh Fard on 25.09.2005 and were astonished to know that their respective shares in the suit property have been transferred to their brother, Amanat Ali through oral gift mutation No. 1943 dated 28.07.2004 and registered gift deed No. 6306 dated 26.07.2004. The same are result of fraud and ineffective upon the rights and interests of the Respondents and thus, liable to be set aside including subsequent transactions.

7.The suit was resisted on legal and factual plane with the counter stance that the Respondents along with their husbands/son thumb marked the relevant stamp papers consciously and knowingly. It was alleged that gift deed and gift mutation are absolutely genuine and executed by the Respondents with their free will and consent. The subsequent purchasers claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice.

8.The Trial Court framed issues and recorded respective evidence of the parties. The suit was concurrently decreed as stated above.

9.It is evident from the scrutiny of evidence on record that witnesses of the Respondents substantially deposed in line with the pleadings in the plaint. It was established that the Respondents are Parda Nashin ladies. The male members accompanying them were also illiterate persons. The Respondents and the male members thumb marked the stamp papers by reposing trust in Amanat Ali under the belief and assurance that they are doing so in order to get their lawful shares of inheritance. As such, although thumb impressions were voluntarily affixed yet without knowledge regarding contents of the documents which were never read over to them in order to understand the purpose of the same. Hence, initial burden of proof shifted upon the Petitioners and the other Respondents to prove the validity of the impugned gift transactions. Conspicuously, the ingredients of gift in terms of offer, acceptance and possession were not pleaded in the written statement regarding date, time, place and venue of the said transactions and as such, the same could not be proved. DW-1/Amanat Ali admitted in his cross-examination that land was in his self-cultivation before passing away of his father and he used to give share of wheat and rice to the Respondents after every six months but when another sister, Saleeman Bibi wanted to sell her share, he instituted a suit for permanent injunction and that Patwari was also called at home. The Trial Court noted that gift mutation and registered gift deed were sanctioned on 28.07.2004 and 26.07.2004, respectively, but Ex.P-6 reveals that Amanat Ali on 28.09.2004 i.e. after about two months instituted a suit for partition and permanent injunction against his real sisters including the Respondents, wherein, he stated that the parties are owners as per inheritance mutation No. 1900 and the suit property is in the joint ownership of the parties which further lead credence to the stance of the Respondents. The plea of bona fide purchasers for value without notice with respect to subsequent purchasers was discarded as it was established that the suit property was transferred during the pendency of litigation and injunctive order, particularly, when DW-9 admitted that Respondent No. 1 did not get her share of inheritance, whereas, DWs-10 and 12 admitted that they are residents of same village indicating that they were aware of pendency of civil litigation. This led the Courts below to concurrently decree the suit in favour of the Respondents by setting aside the oral gift mutation and registered gift deed along with all subsequent mutations / registered sale deeds being inoperative upon the rights and interests of the Respondents subject to fixation of Court fee of Rs. 15,000/- within a period of forty five days from the date of the Judgment.

10.The contentions of learned counsel for the Petitioners and the other Respondents have been considered in the light of case law submitted by them. Suffice is to state that civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case. The case law relied upon by the Petitioners is distinguishable and is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. The fraud by very nature is different in each case. In instance case, fraud was alleged to have been committed by concealing the purpose of the transactions and as such, free will and consent of the Respondents was conspicuously absent in the impugned gift transactions which was proved by them, whereafter, the initial onus of proof shifted upon the Petitioners but they failed to plead and prove the validity of the gift transactions in terms of its ingredients, particularly, when the Respondents as well as their male members were illiterate. Hence, question of availability of independent advice in terms of presence of male members did not rise when nature and purpose of the transactions was effectively concealed. The possession is ancillary and consequential relief which was rightly and aptly extended to the Respondents. Hence, the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below are result of correct and aptly appreciation of law and evidence which cannot be interfered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the C.P.C.

11.Before parting, it is also noted that the Respondents moved an application before the Appellate Court for extension of time in payment of Court fee which was allowed vide impugned Order dated 23.12.2024 by holding that Appeal is continuation of the suit and payment of Court fee is a matter between the Respondents and the Court which is meant for fiscal purposes for the welfare of the Government in terms of its revenue and has no bearing on the merits of the case. As such, the party cannot be non-suited merely on the basis of deficiency of Court fee, particularly, when the Appeal was preferred by the other side within the stipulated period granted for deposit of Court fee. Further, no such ground or objection was taken in the memorandum of Appeal and the objection was merely pressed at the time when the Respondents themselves filed an application for extension of time in payment of Court fee. Suffice is to hold that the impugned Order extending time and granting permission to the Respondents to pay the Court fee also does not call for any interference by this Court.

12.In view of the above, the titled Civil Revisions being devoid of any merit are dismissed .

UN/A-3/L Revisions dismissed.