Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Mst. Resham Jan vs Abdur Rehman1991 SC MR 1849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-22
  cancellation of bailfurther inquirySection 497 CrPCmisuse of bailwitness tamperingmurder casenon-bailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan was filed against the High Court's grant of post-arrest bail to the respondent in a murder case. The core legal question examined was whether the mere need for further inquiry entitles an accused to bail under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a specific finding that there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed a non-bailable offence, which would bring the case under Section 497(2). Additionally, the complainant side established that the respondent had misused the concession of bail by threatening prosecution witnesses, leading to a police report and proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was not entitled to bail as of right without the requisite finding under Section 497(2) and due to the misuse of bail. Consequently, the bail granted to the respondent was cancelled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere need for further inquiry entitles an accused to bail under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a finding that there are no reasonable grounds for believing he committed a non-bailable offence?
  • Does a case fall within Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically upon a plea of further inquiry without a finding on reasonable grounds?
  • Can bail granted in a murder case be cancelled on the ground of misusing the concession of bail by threatening prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Resham Bibi and 4 others vs Mst. Elahi Sain and 8 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 1034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-22
  land settlementinheritance mutationpending proceedingswrit jurisdictionact of courtconstitutional jurisdictionrepeal of laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a land settlement dispute where appellants were directed by Settlement Authorities to resolve inheritance claims in Civil Court. Although the Civil Court ruled in the appellants' favor, the High Court subsequently held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. Following Supreme Court observations that Settlement Authorities could consider the Civil Court's findings, the Settlement Commissioner dismissed the case, citing the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, and claiming the proceedings were not "pending." The Supreme Court addressed whether the 1975 Act's "pending proceedings" bar applied to constitutional jurisdiction and whether the High Court could review the Settlement Authorities' contradictory actions. The Court held that the 1975 Act did not divest the High Court or Supreme Court of their constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199. It affirmed that superior courts retain the power to remand cases to notified officers post-repeal. Furthermore, applying the principle that no litigant should suffer due to the act of a court or authority, the Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the High Court for final determination on the inheritance claims.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar regarding pending proceedings in Section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, apply to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199?
  • Can a litigant be prejudiced by the procedural directions of a Settlement Authority that later claims it lacks jurisdiction to resolve the matter?
  • Do the Supreme Court and High Court retain the authority to remand settlement cases to notified officers following the repeal of the Settlement Laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehmat Bibi And Others vs Muhammad Ali And Other1991 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-31
  leave to appealevacuee propertyproperty transferpossessionresidual property
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 19-9-1987, arising from a dispute over the transfer of a house. The core legal question is whether an occupant who failed to formally apply for the transfer of a disputed property in her name on the basis of possession can challenge the transfer of the entire property made to another party on the ground that it was not evacuee property prior to a specific date. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner's claim was rightly rejected because she did not formally apply for the transfer of the property in her possession. The key principle laid down is that an occupant who fails to seek transfer of property in the prescribed manner cannot successfully challenge a transfer made to another based on possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can an occupant who failed to apply for the transfer of a property challenge its transfer to another person?
  • Whether a property not treated as evacuee property prior to 1-1-1957 can be transferred based on possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehana vs Arshad Khan and 2 others1991 MLD 1395 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Sultana vs Mrs. Muhammad Hasan Khan and 9 others1991 CLC 632 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-23
  rent evictiondefault in payment of rentbona fide personal requirementlandlord-tenant disputeburden of proofwaiver of rentmoney order payment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller, Karachi, dismissing an eviction application filed by the appellant-landlady against her tenants on grounds of default and personal requirement. The core legal questions were whether the tenants committed default in rent payment and whether the landlady established a bona fide personal requirement. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the tenants in default. It rejected the tenants' argument that a practice of paying accumulated rent existed, holding that isolated instances of late payment acceptance do not constitute a waiver of statutory obligations or establish a practice of payment at the tenant's convenience. The Court affirmed that the burden of proving payment lies on the tenant. Regarding personal requirement, the Court upheld the Rent Controller's finding against the landlady, noting that her prior conduct of re-letting a shop previously vacated for personal use undermined the bona fides of her claim. The Court emphasized that a tenant cannot rely on a landlord's past leniency to excuse persistent default, and the landlord's own conduct regarding prior vacancies is relevant to assessing bona fide need.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acceptance of delayed rent on isolated occasions establish a practice of paying accumulated rent?
  • Can a tenant avoid eviction for default by pleading a practice of accumulated payment when the landlord has only occasionally accepted late payments?
  • Does a landlord's act of re-letting premises previously vacated for personal use negate the bona fides of a subsequent claim for personal requirement?
  • Is a tenant relieved of the obligation to pay rent monthly if the landlord refuses to accept payment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Khatoon vs Roshan H. Nanji1991 MLD 1345 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Khatoon Through Legal Heirs vs Dr. Roshan H. Nanji And Another1991 SCMR 840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-12
  evictionrented premisespersonal usesummary procedureprobative valueNational Identity Cardlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals by the legal heirs of a deceased landlady against a High Court judgment denying eviction of two tenants under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved the proof of the landlady's age (60 years) to invoke the special summary procedure, the definition of 'personal use' regarding her son, and whether multiple separate tenancies could be simultaneously vacated under this provision. The Supreme Court held that the National Identity Card serves as reliable evidence of age unless rebutted, and that the 'personal use' requirement under Section 14 does not require proof of good faith in the same manner as general eviction proceedings. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while the categories of persons entitled to relief under Section 14 are distributive and independent, a landlord cannot invoke this summary right to evict multiple separate tenancies. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal for the first-instituted tenancy, exhausting the right under Section 14, and dismissed the appeal regarding the second tenancy.

  Questions settled

  • Can a National Identity Card be accepted as conclusive proof of age for invoking Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Does the 'personal use' requirement under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 necessitate an inquiry into the good faith of the landlord?
  • Can a landlord invoke Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 to evict tenants from multiple separate tenancies simultaneously?
  • Are the categories of persons entitled to relief under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 distributive or combined?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Khatoon through Legal Heirs vs Abdul Razzak1991 CLC 1236 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-31
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide requirementlandlord and tenantdefault in payment of rentrent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by the appellant landlady against the respondent tenant in respect of a commercial shop situated in Karachi, on the ground of personal bona fide requirement for her son to start a general merchant-cum-medical store. The Rent Controller dismissed the application after assessing the evidence, noting a previous finding by the High Court under section 14 regarding the same plea. The core legal question was whether the appellant established a bona fide personal requirement for the disputed shop, particularly when another adjacent shop had already been made available to her through a concurrent ejectment order. The Sindh High Court held that the personal requirement of the appellant for the second shop was not made out, as the availability of the first shop sufficiently met the intended business needs of her son. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord claim multiple adjacent shops for the personal business requirement of a son when another shop has already been vacated and made available?
  • Whether the dismissal of a prior ejectment application under section 14 operates to bar a subsequent plea of personal requirement in proceedings under section 15?
  • Does the availability of an alternative shop sufficient for a proposed business negate the landlord's good faith requirement for additional premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Bibi vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1435 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasul Bibi vs Qadar Dad and another1991 MLD 2008 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-18
  pre-emption suitsuperior right of pre-emptionopinion evidenceSection 50 Evidence Actpreponderance of probabilitiescivil revisionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit where the plaintiff, Mst. Rasul Bibi, claimed a superior right of pre-emption based on her alleged relationship as the sister of the vendor, Fazal Elahi. The trial court decreed the suit in her favor, but the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the oral evidence regarding the relationship failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 50 of the Evidence Act 1872. The High Court, upon review, held that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to establish the relationship. The Court clarified that while Section 50 of the Evidence Act 1872 allows for opinion evidence based on conduct, it does not require a party to lay a formal foundation of conduct for every witness, particularly when the witness is a relative or friend with special means of knowledge. Emphasizing that civil matters are decided on the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court restored the trial court's decree, finding the plaintiff's evidence credible and unrebutted.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 50 of the Evidence Act 1872 require a witness to explicitly lay a foundation of conduct before testifying about a family relationship?
  • Is a party's own deposition on oath admissible and probative in a civil proceeding?
  • What is the standard of proof required to establish a fact in issue in a civil pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasool Bibi vs Qadar Dad and others1991 MLD 2091 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasool Bibi And Others vs Province of the Punjab Through Collector1991 SCMR 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-28
  non-prosecutiondismissal of appealrestoration applicationappellate court powerscivil procedurelimitationsufficient cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a revision petition regarding the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution. The petitioners had filed a suit for declaration and possession, which was dismissed by the trial court. Their subsequent first appeal was dismissed by the District Judge due to the absence of the petitioners and their counsel. A subsequent application for restoration was dismissed due to being time-barred and lacking sufficient cause for the absence. The core legal question was whether an appellate court is legally obligated to decide an appeal on merits despite the absence of the appellant or their counsel, and whether the dismissal of the restoration application was justified. The Supreme Court held that Order XLI, Rule 17(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permits an appellate court to dismiss an appeal for non-appearance. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that findings of fact regarding the sufficiency of reasons for absence, made by lower courts, cannot be interfered with unless found to be arbitrary or perverse. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order XLI, Rule 17(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permit an appellate court to dismiss an appeal when the appellant or their counsel fails to appear?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the sufficiency of reasons for counsel's absence in a restoration application?
  • Is an appellate court required to decide an appeal on merits if the appellant fails to appear at the hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Begum And 6 Others vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner1991 SCMR 374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-23
  settlement propertyquestion of factleave to appealwrit jurisdictionproperty disputetransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioners against an order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The dispute concerned whether a specific store within a property in Anarkali, Lahore, formed part of a shop previously purchased by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest or whether it remained separate. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, following a remand and thorough inquiry, determined that the store in dispute was not part of the shop transferred to the petitioners' predecessor. The High Court subsequently upheld this finding. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the core legal question—whether the store constituted part of the shop allotted to the petitioners' predecessor—was a pure question of fact. Finding that this factual determination had already been concluded in favour of the respondent by the courts below, the Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that findings of fact by lower forums, when properly reached, are not subject to interference in appellate jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a determination regarding the physical boundaries of a transferred property considered a question of fact?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts and settlement authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashid Jehan vs Muhammad Ashfaq1991 MLD 2619 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-27
  tentative rent orderstriking off defencedefault in rent deposittechnical defaultSindh Rented Premises Ordinancerent appealmiscellaneous rent case
  Summary & questions settled

  This first rent appeal challenges an order passed by the Rent Controller striking off the appellant-tenant's defence due to an alleged failure to comply with a tentative rent order. The core legal question concerns whether depositing rent in a miscellaneous rent case instead of the main rent case constitutes a default warranting the penal action of striking off defence under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Sindh High Court held that where rent continues to be deposited in court through a miscellaneous case due to a misinterpretation or lack of communication of the order, the default is merely technical and irregular rather than contumacious, and thus does not attract penal consequences. The court laid down the principle that penal provisions such as section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 must be strictly construed, and a technical default accompanied by substantial compliance and a reasonable explanation does not justify striking off a tenant's defence.

  Questions settled

  • Does depositing rent in a miscellaneous rent case instead of the main rent case amount to a penal default under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether a technical default in complying with a tentative rent order justifies striking off a tenant's defence?
  • Are penal provisions regarding the striking off of a tenant's defence to be construed strictly?
  • Does an authority competent to pass an order under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 have the power to recall, vary, or alter the same?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ramzan Bibi vs Collector, Customs and Central Excises, Peshawar And Another1991 SCMR 1813(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-17
  service appealdisciplinary proceedingsmisconductcompulsory retirementleave to appealabsenteeismservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the petitioner's penalty from removal from service to compulsory retirement. The petitioner, a former Lady Searcher in the Customs Department, faced disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absenteeism on sixteen occasions and absence from headquarters during duty hours on sixteen other occasions between September and November 1984. Following a show-cause notice and subsequent removal from service, the petitioner appealed to the Federal Service Tribunal, which condoned the delay in filing but upheld the factual findings of misconduct. The petitioner contended that her absences were due to personal and family illness. The Supreme Court held that the factual findings recorded by the departmental authority and affirmed by the Tribunal were not subject to interference at the leave-to-appeal stage. Furthermore, the Court determined that the punishment of compulsory retirement was proportionate to the gravity of the established misconduct. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is a finding of fact recorded by a departmental authority and upheld by the Federal Service Tribunal liable to interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Is the penalty of compulsory retirement proportionate for a government servant found guilty of repeated unauthorized absenteeism?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ramzan Bibi And 14 Others vs Ahmad Din1991 SCMR 1532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-22
  leave to appealadjournmentpenal provisionminors' interestsadverse possessionrecord of rightspossession and injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiff side, including minors, against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court regarding a suit for possession and injunction. The trial court had dismissed the suit under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after the petitioners failed to produce evidence and their counsel expressed helplessness due to their absence. The core legal questions involve whether the trial court had the discretion to apply such a punitive provision or adjourn the matter, whether that discretion was properly exercised with regard to the interests of minors, and whether the suit could be dismissed under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. where ownership averments were uncontested and the respondent relied on adverse possession. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions concerning judicial discretion and the protection of minors' interests.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Court had discretion to apply Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C., a punitive provision or to adjourn the case or pass any order other than punitive?
  • If the Court had the required discretion, whether it has been properly exercised, particularly whether the interest of the minors was duly safeguarded?
  • Whether, in view of the clear averments in the plaint regarding the record of rights showing petitioners' ownership and the respondent's reliance on adverse possession, the suit could be dismissed under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raisham Bibi vs Additional Commissioner (Revenue) With Powers Of Settlement Commissioner (Land) And Other1991 SCMR 1332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-31
  mutation of inheritanceremand of casesettlement commissionerwrit petitionpetitions for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) exercising powers of Settlement Commissioner (Land). The Settlement Commissioner had set aside an order of the Assistant Commissioner upholding a mutation of inheritance in favour of the petitioner, Mst. Raisham Bibi, and remanded the case for a fresh decision after hearing both parties. The core question involved the legality of the remand order and the prolonged delay in the fresh proceedings before the original forum. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to grant leave to appeal to avoid further prolonging the decades-old litigation. Instead, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Lyallpur, to decide the long-pending remanded case strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months. The key principle laid down is that courts should expedite protracted revenue matters rather than keeping them pending through extended appellate litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against an order remanding a revenue matter for fresh decision after prolonged delay?
  • Can a court direct an inferior revenue authority to conclude pending remanded proceedings within a specified timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qaiser Jehan vs Karachi Transport Corporation and another1991 MLD 415 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Perveen Akhtar vs District Collector and others1991 CLC 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Pervaiz Akhtar vs The State And Other1991 SCMR 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-04
  dying declarationdeath sentenceappreciation of evidenceconcurrent findingsleave to appealmedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner, Sabir Hussain, for the murder of his wife, Mst. Azra Begum, under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while simultaneously maintaining the acquittal of two co-accused. The core legal questions were whether the dying declaration of the deceased could be relied upon given the extent of her burn injuries, and whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the conviction and the acquittal of the co-accused warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the medical evidence supported the conclusion that the deceased remained conscious for a significant period after the incident, validating the reliance on the dying declaration. The Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and the High Court was legally sound. The principle laid down is that where concurrent findings of fact are based on credible evidence, such as a dying declaration not contradicted by medical testimony, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the lower courts' appreciation of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration be relied upon when the victim has sustained extensive burn injuries?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence by lower courts?
  • Is a victim's statement regarding the cause of their injuries admissible as a dying declaration if the victim remains conscious for several hours post-injury?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen Akhtar vs Ghulam Akbar and others1991 CLC 1393 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nurgis Nazar vs Divisional Superintendent Pakistan RailwaysK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 664 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nur Jehan Begum Through Legal Representatives vs Syed Mujtaba1991 SCMR 2300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-04
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide requirementpromissory estoppelcross-examination failureuncrossed witness statementlandlord and tenantequitable modification of rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by a landlord seeking possession of residential premises for personal bona fide use following his retirement from government service. The tenant opposed the eviction, claiming promissory estoppel on the ground that rent had been repeatedly enhanced based on the landlord's representation that he would not disturb her tenancy upon retirement. The key legal questions before the court were whether the landlord was bound by promissory estoppel and whether the failure to directly cross-examine the tenant's attorney on the alleged representations amounted to an admission of those facts. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the eviction order. The Court held that an unchallenged statement of a witness usually carries weight, but an omission to directly cross-examine on a specific plea does not constitute acceptance if the plea is effectively displaced by other evidence and circumstantial credibility. Furthermore, promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine that does not permanently modify or extinguish a landlord's legal rights inter se indefinitely.

  Questions settled

  • Does a party's failure to directly cross-examine a witness on a specific material statement automatically amount to an admission of its truth?
  • Can the doctrine of promissory estoppel permanently extinguish a landlord's right to seek ejectment for personal bona fide requirement?
  • How does equitable promissory estoppel operate to modify the original legal rights of parties over time?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Jehan vs Sindh Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad1991 PLC 722 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Jehan vs Nazir Ahmad Khan and others1991 CLC 1649 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Bibi And 9 Others vs Ghulam Rasool1991 SCMR 1281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-28
  specific performanceagreement to sellmisreading of evidencesecond appealappellate interferencetestimony of scribe
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reversed the concurrent findings of two lower courts and decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court was justified in reversing the findings of the lower courts regarding the execution of the sale agreement. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had correctly identified a misreading of evidence by the lower courts. Specifically, the High Court relied on the testimony of the scribe of the sale agreement, who, despite having closer familial and personal ties to the petitioners (the legal heirs of the deceased vendor), testified in support of the respondent's claim. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reliance on this testimony was appropriate, noting there was no evidence of fraud in the execution of the document. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition, finding no grounds for further interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court reverse concurrent findings of lower courts based on a misreading of evidence?
  • Is the testimony of a scribe who is related to the opposing party sufficient to support the validity of a sale agreement?
  • Does the absence of evidence of fraud support the validity of a contested agreement to sell?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Neelofar alias Shah Bano vs Wasihuddin and others1991 MLD 2381 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Neelam Mawaz vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-24
  suspension of sentencepost-arrest bailscheduled offencecoram non judiceSuppression of Terrorist ActivitiesSpecial Court jurisdictionSection 365-A PPCSection 411 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a Lahore High Court order dismissing an application under Section 426 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of a criminal appeal. The trial had been conducted by a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, for an offence purportedly under Section 365-A PPC. The High Court had held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant bail or suspend sentence under Section 7(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the charge and evidence against the appellant brought the case under Section 365-A PPC or merely under Section 411 PPC (a non-scheduled offence). The Court held that prima facie, if the appellant was tried for a non-scheduled offence, the proceedings before the Special Court would be coram non judice and the bar under Section 7(1) would not apply. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the matter back for expeditious decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory bar under Section 7(1) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 apply if the offence for which the accused was tried is not a scheduled offence?
  • Can a conviction by a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 be held coram non judice if the allegations against the accused fall only under a non-scheduled offence such as Section 411 PPC?
  • Does receiving stolen property obtained through extortion fall under Section 365-A PPC or Section 411 PPC?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazima Begum And Another vs Mst. Hasina Begum And Other1991 SCMR 177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-08
  specific performancepermanent injunctionOrder 2 Rule 2splitting of claimsmaintainability of suitcivil procedureequally efficacious relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the maintainability of a suit for specific performance filed after the withdrawal of a prior suit for permanent injunction concerning the same property. The appellants contended that the second suit was barred by Order 2, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, due to the splitting of claims. The Supreme Court addressed whether a subsequent suit for specific performance is barred when the initial suit for permanent injunction was legally incompetent. Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that the second suit was maintainable. The Court established that Order 2, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, does not bar a subsequent suit if the relief sought in the first suit was incompetent or barred by law, specifically under Section 56(1) of the Specific Relief Act 1877. Since a suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable where an equally efficacious remedy like specific performance exists, the plaintiff was not entitled to split claims, and the statutory bar against splitting claims does not apply to incompetent prior proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for specific performance barred by Order 2, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, if a prior suit for permanent injunction concerning the same cause of action was withdrawn?
  • Does Order 2, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, apply to a subsequent suit if the relief claimed in the first suit was incompetent or barred by Section 56(1) of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Can a plaintiff maintain a suit for permanent injunction when an equally efficacious remedy, such as specific performance, is available for the breach of a contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nawab Bibi Alias Babo vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 935 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Zohra vs Multan Development Authority through Director1991 CLC 1001 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-23
  land acquisitionhousing schemeMultan Development Authoritymala fide exercise of powercompensation market valuebypass roadconstitutional petitionjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was instituted by a landowner challenging a notification dated 21-1-1980 issued under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 for acquiring land for the Multan Bypass. Land acquisition proceedings had initially commenced in 1976 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for public highway construction, but respondents abandoned the 1894 Act proceedings and initiated fresh acquisition under the 1973 Act, capping compensation at Rs. 20,000 per acre. The core legal issues were whether land required solely for constructing a bypass could legally be treated as a 'housing scheme' under the 1973 Act and the Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976, and whether abandoning proceedings under the 1894 Act to pay lesser compensation constituted mala fide exercise of power. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition, declaring the 1980 notification illegal and void. The Court held that constructing an independent bypass road without residential development is not a housing scheme, and switching statutes to deprive owners of fair market value constitutes a mala fide, colorable exercise of authority subject to judicial review under writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the acquisition of land solely for the construction of an independent bypass road be legally treated as a 'housing scheme' under the Punjab Acquisition of Lands (Housing) Act 1973?
  • Does an acquiring authority commit a mala fide and unlawful act by abandoning acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and initiating fresh proceedings under a statute capping compensation to avoid paying market value?
  • Is a notification issued under land acquisition statutes immune from judicial review by the High Court under its constitutional writ jurisdiction where allegations of mala fides and colorable exercise of power are established?
  • Can an Official Development Agency acquire land for a scheme under the Punjab Development of Cities Act 1976 without the scheme being properly prepared and sanctioned by the Government in accordance with Section 12 of the Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs Ahmad Hasan And Another1991 SCMR 1303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-13
  Supreme Court of Pakistanleave to appealSettlement Scheme No. VIIIwrit petitionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby a writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed and the matter was set aside on the ground that the competent authority failed to determine whether the petitioner was in actual possession during the relevant period to entitle him to submit a form under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The core legal question concerns the legality of the transfer of a shop under Settlement Scheme No. VIII in the absence of a factual finding regarding possession and the appropriate course of action for the High Court when a material question has not been examined by the inferior tribunal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the proper course upon finding a failure to examine possession was to remand the matter rather than to simply allow the writ petition outright. The Court held that the contentions raised require detailed consideration and granted leave subject to furnishing security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court should remand a matter when the inferior tribunal fails to determine a material question of possession?
  • Is the transfer of a shop under Settlement Scheme No. VIII valid if the claimant's possession during the relevant period is not established?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Mahmooda vs Mumtaz Imran and others1991 MLD 2227 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasira Sultana vs Sultan M. Ahmed and another1991 CLC 527 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Khatoon and others vs Syed Irshad Hussain and others1991 MLD 1321 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20
  maintenance decreeminor's welfareexecution of decreefamily court jurisdictioncompromisenext friendconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the enforceability of a maintenance decree in favor of minor children after a compromise was recorded during execution proceedings. The petitioners, minor daughters, obtained a maintenance decree against their father, which was later challenged after a compromise was recorded in an execution petition, leading the appellate court to declare the decree unenforceable. The core legal questions were whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the rejection of the objection petition, and whether a compromise entered into by a next friend on behalf of minors, without judicial scrutiny of the minors' welfare, renders a maintenance decree permanently unenforceable. The Court held that the order rejecting the objection was a 'decision' under the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964, and thus appealable. However, it ruled that a compromise involving minors requires judicial verification of their welfare. Furthermore, the Court established that a maintenance decree is not extinguished by a temporary reconciliation or the withdrawal of an execution petition; it remains enforceable if the father subsequently fails to provide maintenance.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order by a Family Court rejecting an objection petition considered a 'decision' appealable under Section 14 of the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Can a compromise entered into by a next friend on behalf of minors be binding if the court fails to ascertain if it is for the minors' benefit?
  • Does the resumption of cohabitation or the withdrawal of an execution petition render a maintenance decree permanently unenforceable?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Akhtar vs Muhammad Sabeel and another1991 PLD Azad J & K 66 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-05-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Saddique vs District Education Officer (W), Sahiwal and 21991 MLD 2214 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Akhtar vs Abdul Aziz And Another1991 SCMR 1563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-27
  leave to appealdowerfraud and collusiondivorce deedproperty transfersuit for declaration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mst. Naseem Akhtar against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed her suit for a declaration and possession of land. The petitioner had originally received 3 Kanals 8 Marlas of land from her husband, Abdul Aziz, in lieu of dower. Following the dissolution of their marriage, the petitioner allegedly executed a sale deed transferring the land back to the respondent. The petitioner challenged this transaction, alleging fraud and collusion, and initially succeeded in the trial court. However, the appellate court and the High Court subsequently dismissed her suit. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the principles established in Ghulam Ali v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1) were correctly applied by the lower courts. Furthermore, the Court seeks to examine the legal effect of specific conditions contained within the divorce deed dated 30-6-1976 regarding the transfer of property between the parties. The appeal is to proceed on the existing record, with parties permitted to file necessary documents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principles laid down in Ghulam Ali v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1) were correctly followed by the lower courts?
  • What is the legal effect of a condition contained in a divorce deed regarding the transfer of property between former spouses?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nargas Alias Soma vs Mahniood Ahmad Butt And Another1991 PCr.LJ 2160 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naheed Mehmood alias Shabo vs Mehmood Khan and another1991 PLD Federal Shariat Court 131 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-04-22
  QazfZinaHadd punishmentcriminal revisionrelevancy of evidencecross-examinationpreliminary inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood Court) in a complaint case alleging the offence of Qazf. The petitioner, the respondent's wife, alleged that the respondent falsely accused her of Zina (illicit sexual relations) on three occasions: in an F.I.R. filed against her, during bail proceedings, and by spreading rumors in the locality. The Federal Shariat Court examined the evidence, noting that the petitioner failed to substantiate the allegations. Specifically, the court found no proof of the alleged statements made in the F.I.R. or during bail hearings, and the testimony regarding the neighborhood propaganda was hearsay, as no independent witnesses from the locality were produced. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's attempt to rely on a statement recorded during a preliminary inquiry under Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the respondent had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness, rendering Section 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 inapplicable. The revision petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement recorded during a preliminary inquiry under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be admitted as evidence in a subsequent trial if the adverse party had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness?
  • Does the mere allegation of illicit relations in an F.I.R. or during bail proceedings constitute the offence of Qazf?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for admitting previous testimony under Section 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nadira Yusuf vs Shaikh Muhammad Arshad1991 MLD 1088 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mussarat Begum and 3 others vs Ameer Ali Shah and another1991 CLC 784 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Muslima Jan vs Mst. Zaitoon and 12 others1991 MLD 1881 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musarrat Parveen vs Muhammad Akram1991 P Cr. L J 878 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-29
  habeas corpuschild custodyminorwrit jurisdictionguardian judgefamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking the custody of her minor child, Mst. Naurin Akhtar, who was currently in the custody of the respondent-father, Muhammad Akram. The core legal question was whether the father's detention of the child was unlawful, thereby warranting the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The respondent contended that he had divorced the petitioner due to her alleged illicit relations with another man, providing evidence of letters and visa applications suggesting the petitioner intended to remove the child from Pakistan. The Court observed that the father's apprehension regarding the child's removal was not baseless. Holding that the father's custody of his own child could not be deemed unlawful or illegal, the Court declined to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court affirmed that the child should remain with the father and directed the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies regarding custody through the competent Guardian Judge, thereby establishing that habeas corpus is not the appropriate mechanism for resolving custody disputes where the father's possession is not illegal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ of habeas corpus the appropriate remedy for a mother to seek custody of a minor child from the father?
  • Can a father's custody of his own child be considered unlawful or illegal in the context of a habeas corpus petition?
  • What is the proper forum for a parent to seek custody of a child when habeas corpus is denied?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Muneera Kaleemuddin And 4 Others vs Muhammad Mahmood Alam1991 SCMR 1028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-09-24
  rent enhancementrented premiseslandlord and tenantstatutory interpretationleave to appealrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns five petitions for leave to appeal filed by tenants against the dismissal of their appeals by the High Court, which had upheld the enhancement of rent for their respective flats. The core legal question is whether the Rent Controller, when determining rent enhancement under Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, is required to consider all factors specified in clauses (a), (b), (c), and (d) of subsection (1) conjointly, and whether an increase of nearly ten times the original rent is exorbitant and legally unsustainable. The petitioners further challenged the evidentiary value of an admission made by one tenant regarding the prevailing rental rates in the locality, arguing it should not bind all tenants. The Supreme Court, noting the need to examine the interpretation of the statutory requirements for rent enhancement and the proper application of the factors listed in the Ordinance, granted leave to appeal to consider these issues. The Court also ordered that the existing stay orders remain in operation pending the final adjudication of the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Must a Rent Controller consider all factors specified in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 8(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 conjointly when enhancing rent?
  • Can an admission regarding rental rates made by one tenant be used as evidence against other tenants in the same property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz vs Afsar Khan And Another1991 SCMR 1779 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-28
  Pardanashin ladydeclaratory suitland alienationfraud and collusionmutation of landrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that reversed an appellate decree in a declaratory suit. The petitioner, a woman, sought a declaration that mutations of land alienation in favour of her former husband were void, alleging fraud, collusion, and lack of protection as a Pardanashin lady. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court decreed it in her favour. The High Court subsequently restored the trial court's dismissal in its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined whether the petitioner was a victim of fraud or suffered from any disability as a Pardanashin lady. The Court held that the petitioner actively participated in the transactions, thumb-marked entries, and failed to explain her conduct. Furthermore, she sought to retain the benefits of an exchange transaction while challenging the corresponding alienation, which the Court deemed impermissible. Finding no evidence of fraud or disability, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the principles regarding Pardanashin ladies were inapplicable where the party actively participated and benefited from the transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge an exchange transaction while simultaneously retaining the benefits received from it?
  • Does the doctrine of protection for a Pardanashin lady apply when the party actively participates in the transaction and suffers no practical disability?
  • Is a party entitled to claim fraud in a land alienation transaction if they have thumb-marked the relevant entries and participated in the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mobin Kfianum vs Ata Mohiuddin, Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others1991 MLD 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Miraj Bibi vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 1405 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06
  specific performancerejection of plaintrent controller jurisdictionmaintainability of suitcivil procedureejectment order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had dismissed the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement and a declaration of title, which also challenged an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller, was barred by the provisions of Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that the suit was maintainable. The ratio decidendi is that where a suit encompasses a claim for specific performance—a relief beyond the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller—it cannot be summarily rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of being barred by law. The court affirmed that questions regarding the maintainability of a suit involving complex claims of title and specific performance are best determined after framing necessary issues rather than through summary dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit for specific performance be summarily rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that it challenges an ejectment order?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to grant a decree for specific performance of an agreement?
  • Is the question of a suit's maintainability required to be determined after framing issues when the claim involves complex relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehr Bhari And 6 Others vs Mst. Bhag Bhari And 2 Other1991 SCMR 897 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-13
  giftHiba-bil-Iwazdelivery of possessionconsideration of marriagerevocation of giftMuslim Law
  Summary & questions settled

  Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the High Court correctly interpreted the law regarding gifts to non-heirs without delivery of possession. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants executed a registered gift deed of agricultural land in favour of the respondent in consideration of her marriage to his son and anticipated future services. After the marriage broke down, the donor instituted a suit to declare the gift void, alleging lack of possession and failure of consideration. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court and the High Court dismissed it, holding the transaction to be a valid Hiba-bil-Iwaz (gift for consideration) where marriage constituted a valid iwaz and delivery of possession was not strictly required in the same manner as a simple hiba. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the marriage and subsequent cohabitation served as valid consideration (iwaz), that the gift was complete, and that the fiduciary relationship precluded the donor from disputing the delivery of possession recited in the registered deed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether marriage can constitute a valid consideration (iwaz) for a Hiba-bil-Iwaz under Muslim Law?
  • Does a gift made in consideration of marriage require delivery of possession to complete the transfer?
  • Can a donor revoke a gift on the ground of frustration of consideration when the marriage subsisted for a period of time before breaking down?
  • Whether a recital of delivery of possession in a registered gift deed is binding on the donor when a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Manzooran vs Station House Officer, Layyah and 2 others-1991 P Cr. L J 665 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maneeza Begum and 6 others vs Chairman, Municipal Committee, Mirpur and 2 others1991 MLD 2114 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-07-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mah Pari vs Malang Dad and 4 others1991 CLC 808 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Laqeeun Nisa And Others vs Mst. Saeed Akhtar And Other1991 SCMR 1157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-28
  evacuee propertyland allotmentinformer claimwrit jurisdictionsettlement authoritiesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal regarding the allotment of urban evacuee land. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners, claiming as informers and allottees, possessed a superior right to the disputed land over respondent No.1, whose prior allotment was cancelled due to acquisition by the Lahore Improvement Trust, and whether the High Court could interfere with the Settlement Commissioner's factual preference in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners had no statutory right to claim allotment on the basis of being informers at the relevant time, and the Settlement Commissioner's reasoned choice favoring respondent No.1 was a question of fact not open to interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by settlement authorities regarding the choice of land allotment, made with proper reasons, are immune from interference under constitutional writ jurisdiction, and informers possess no inherent statutory right to claim land allotments unless provided by law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether informers have a statutory right to claim the allotment of evacuee land without express legal provision?
  • Can the High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with a finding of fact regarding the choice of land allotment made by a Settlement Commissioner?
  • Does an allottee whose land is cancelled due to acquisition have a preferred claim for adjustment by the settlement authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kulsum Begum and another vs Muhammad Siddique1991 CLC 1134 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-13
  First Rent Appealchange in ownershiplandlord and tenantnotice of transferdefault in payment of rentejectment applicationSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a First Rent Appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the Rent Controller, Karachi, which dismissed their ejectment application against the respondent tenant on the sole ground that an intimation regarding the change in ownership of the premises due to the death of the previous owner was not duly served upon the tenant pursuant to section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether non-receipt of the registered notice of change in ownership by the tenant negates the relationship of landlord and tenant or constitutes non-compliance with section 18. The Sindh High Court held that the mere dispatch of the intimation by registered post constitutes sufficient compliance under section 18, and the filing of an ejectment application also serves as due compliance. Consequently, non-receipt of the notice by the tenant does not mean that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the matter remanded to the Rent Controller for a decision on merits after affording the tenant an opportunity to file a written statement and lead evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere dispatch of an intimation of change in ownership by registered post constitutes sufficient compliance with section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the non-receipt of a notice of change in ownership by the tenant invalidate the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Can the filing of an ejectment application be treated as due compliance of section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kulsum Begum and Another vs Mohammad SiddiqueK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 413 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kulsoom (Fatma) vs Wazir Ali and 13 others1991 MLD 1810 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Begum vs Mst. Zubaida Begum And 3 Other1991 SCMR 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-23
  leave to appealconcurrent findings of factsale of landmutation endorsementdeclaration and possessionRegular Second Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendant against the dismissal of her Regular Second Appeal by the High Court, upholding concurrent findings of fact against her in a suit for declaration and possession relating to an alleged sale of land. The core legal question involved whether the sale in favour of the petitioner was fictitious, bogus, and inoperative. All three lower courts rendered concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner, holding that the alleged sale suffered from these defects and that a Patwari's endorsement on the mutation did not constitute sufficient proof or acknowledgement of the sale by the alleged vendor under the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that concurrent findings of fact based on sound reasons do not warrant interference, and affirmed that a Patwari's endorsement without positive proof of a statement made by the vendor is insufficient to prove a disputed sale.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a fictitious sale can be interfered with in second appeal?
  • Is a Patwari's endorsement on a mutation sufficient proof of an acknowledgement of sale by the vendor?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khairunnisa vs Shah Behram and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 478 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khairunnisa and others vs Shah Behram and others1991 CLC 994 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaneez Sughra vs Syed Mushtaq Hussain Shah And Other1991 SCMR 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-23
  minor custodywelfare of the minorguardian and wardsupreme court practicespecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from proceedings initiated by respondent father for the custody of his minor son. The Guardian Judge allowed the application, holding that the minor's welfare lay with the father, which concurrent finding was upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently by the High Court in a writ petition. The core legal question concerned the determination of the welfare of the minor regarding custody as between the mother and the father. The Supreme Court held that no case for interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts had been made out. Based on a fair offer made by the respondent father regarding visitation and sharing custody during the week and vacations, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and disposed of it in terms of the agreed custody arrangement. The key principle laid down is that custody matters are decided primarily on the basis of the welfare of the minor, and appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless properly warranted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the custody of a minor can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
  • How is the welfare of the minor determined in custody disputes between parents?
  • Can custody and visitation arrangements be settled on the basis of an offer made by a party during appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kalsoom Bibi And Others vs Bashir Ahmad And Another1991 SCMR 1919 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-25
  allotment disputesettlement authoritiesquestion of factwrit jurisdictionleave to appealproperty transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the allotment of a 'Chobara' (upper room) situated above a shop in Hamayun Bazar, Sheikhupura. The petitioners, legal representatives of the original allottee Rao Hakim Ali, challenged the transfer of the Chobara to respondent No. 1. Initially, an Assistant Settlement Commissioner transferred both the shop and the Chobara to Rao Hakim Ali. However, the Additional Settlement Commissioner reversed this, ruling that the Chobara was an integral part of the shop, which had been allotted to respondent No. 1. This decision was upheld by the Settlement Commissioner, the High Court, and in a Letters Patent Appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the shop and Chobara were distinct properties with separate numbers and thus could not be transferred as a single unit. The Supreme Court held that this contention involved a question of fact that was never raised before the Settlement authorities. Furthermore, the petitioners' predecessor had previously conceded that the shop and Chobara constituted a single unit. Consequently, the Court refused to entertain this new plea in writ jurisdiction and denied leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a new question of fact in writ jurisdiction that was not raised before the lower settlement authorities?
  • Is a concession made before settlement authorities regarding the nature of a property binding on the parties in subsequent appellate proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Johora Jana vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 1563 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamsheda Begum And Another vs Tariq Shah And Another1991 SCMR 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila vs Hadi Hussain And Others1991 P Cr. L J 1067 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Begum vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1755 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01
  re-investigationdischarge of accusedpolice powersjudicial oversightcriminal proceduremagistrate's authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the legality of a re-investigation initiated by the police after the accused had already been discharged by a Magistrate. The core legal question was whether the police possess the authority to commence a fresh investigation into a case after a Magistrate has formally discharged the accused under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, without obtaining prior judicial permission. The Lahore High Court, relying on the precedent set in Bahadur v. State (PLD 1985 SC 62), held that the police are not competent to unilaterally launch a re-investigation once a discharge order has been passed by a Magistrate. The Court ruled that such a re-investigation is legally impermissible unless the investigating agency first obtains necessary authorization from the concerned Magistrate. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the unauthorized re-investigation, and established the principle that judicial oversight is mandatory for re-opening investigations following a formal discharge order, thereby preventing arbitrary or unchecked police action in matters already adjudicated by a Magistrate.

  Questions settled

  • Can the police initiate a fresh investigation into a case after the accused has been discharged by a Magistrate without obtaining prior permission?
  • Is a Magistrate's discharge order a bar to further police investigation without judicial authorization?
  • Does the police officer have the inherent power to re-investigate a case after a discharge report has been accepted by a Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Begum vs District Judge, Kasur and others1991 CLC 1418 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Begum and another vs Maqboolur Rehman1991 PLD Supreme Court 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-27
  pre-emptionstatutory exemptionTarbela Dam ousteessubsequent saleright of pre-emptioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption dispute where the vendee-defendants challenged the High Court's decision decreeing the respondent's pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a second sale of the suit property, executed prior to the filing of the pre-emption suit to a Tarbela Dam oustee exempted under Section 7(2) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950, barred the pre-emptor's suit, notwithstanding that the exemptee lacked an equal or superior pre-emption right under Section 17(1). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The Court held that Section 7(2) and Section 17(1) operate in distinct spheres; while Section 17(1) governs comparative pre-emption rights, Section 7(2) completely extinguishes the right of pre-emption over the exempted transaction or property. Since the property was transferred to an exemptee before the suit was instituted, the right of pre-emption ceased to exist by operation of law. The Court established the principle that statutory exemptions under Section 7(2) act as an absolute bar to pre-emption claims, rendering comparative rights analysis under Section 17 irrelevant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emption suit can proceed if the suit property is transferred to an exempted person prior to the institution of the suit?
  • How does an exemption under Section 7(2) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950 differ in application from the comparative rights provisions under Section 17 of the Act?
  • Does a transferee claiming statutory exemption under Section 7(2) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950 need to possess an equal or superior right of pre-emption to defeat a pre-emptor's suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Inayat Bibi vs Nazir Ahmad and others1991 CLC 1660 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06
  regular second appealappellate judgmentnon-application of mindwritten argumentsremand of caseduty of appellate court
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal arises out of a suit for declaration originally filed before the civil court. The trial court decreed the suit in part and dismissed it in part. Upon appeal, the Additional District Judge accepted the appeal by issuing a verbatim copy of the written arguments submitted by the respondents, appending a single concluding line of acceptance. The core legal question was whether an appellate judgment that merely reproduces a party's written arguments without independent appraisal complies with the law. The Lahore High Court held that the appellate judgment demonstrated a failure to apply a conscious judicial mind and violated the mandatory provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, rendering it no judgment in the eye of the law. The Court established the principle that an appellate court must independently appraise the material on record, address points for determination, and record its own findings rather than abdicate its judicial duty by copying counsel's written arguments.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate judgment that merely reproduces a party's written arguments satisfy the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is the failure of an appellate court to record its own findings on contentions raised a mere irregularity or an illegality?
  • What is the legal consequence when an appellate court fails to apply its conscious judicial mind to the facts and evidence of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Inayat Bibi And Others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner1991 SCMR 1828 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-09
  special leave to appealland allotmentbogus allotmentcompetent authoritywrit petitionsettlement commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition, which challenged the cancellation of their land allotment by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner was a notified officer competent to cancel the allotment alleged to be bogus under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly found the officer to be competent, and further declined to entertain a new contention regarding the sufficiency of the record that was not raised before the High Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that new factual contentions not raised in the lower court will not be entertained at the leave to appeal stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Additional Settlement Commissioner is competent to cancel a land allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Can a contention regarding the record not raised before the High Court be entertained by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussan Jan vs Umar Hayat Khan And Other1991 SCMR 1839 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-27
  leave to appealinheritance mutationpedigreemisreading of evidencereal sisterdeath registerbirth register
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal regarding the inheritance mutation of the deceased Akbar Khan. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, Mst. Hussan Jan, is the real sister of the deceased and thereby a legal heir entitled to a share in the property, contrary to the findings of the lower appellate court. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel regarding the misreading of evidence and entries from the birth and death registers require closer examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the documentary evidence establishing the petitioner's parentage and her relationship to the deceased. The principle laid down is that where documentary evidence regarding pedigree and vital statistics prima facie supports a claim of relationship and is alleged to have been misread by the lower courts, leave to appeal is warranted for a thorough reappraisal of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court committed a misreading of evidence while determining the pedigree and relationship of the petitioner to the deceased?
  • Does an entry in a birth or death register constitute sufficient proof of parentage for establishing inheritance rights?
  • Whether the petitioner qualifies as a real sister and legal heir of the deceased under the applicable law of inheritance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussan Bibi And Another vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 677 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussain Bibi and others vs Punjab and Kashmir Bank Ltd.1991 CLC 1430 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hina Tayab vs IInd Senior Civil Judge/Family Judge, Karachi1991 MLD 1075 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hashim Bibi Through Her Legal Heirs And 8 Others vs Jalal Din And Other1991 SCMR 780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-28
  adverse possessionrevenue recordconcurrent findingsburden of proofcivil revisiontenancyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a suit for declaration of ownership based on the plea of adverse possession, wherein the petitioners challenged the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court. The petitioners contended that they had been in continuous possession of the suit land since the end of the 19th century, asserting that they never paid rent or acknowledged the respondents' ownership. The lower courts rejected this claim, relying on revenue record entries that consistently identified the petitioners as tenants or occupancy tenants. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners alleged misreading of evidence regarding these documents but failed to substantiate how the specific exhibits were misread or to demonstrate any error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proof regarding adverse possession lies heavily upon the party asserting it, and the petitioners failed to discharge this onus. Consequently, finding no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the courts below, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving adverse possession lie heavily upon the party asserting it?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when no misreading of evidence is demonstrated?
  • Are revenue record entries identifying a party as a tenant sufficient to defeat a claim of adverse possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haseena Begum and others vs Mst. Nazma Begum and others1991 MLD 2327 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hanifan Bibi vs Muhammad Iqbal And 2 Others1991 P Cr. L J 1864 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hanifan Bibi and others vs Muhammad Hussain and others1991 CLC 770 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamida vs Muhammad Zaman And Another1991 SCMR 109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-07-14
  res judicataSettlement Departmentauction confirmationNotified OfficerCivil Court jurisdictionConstitution petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, arising out of a civil suit challenging an order of the Notified Officer dated 18-12-1986 regarding the transfer of a disputed plot. The property had been transferred to respondent No. 1, which determination was upheld by the High Court in an earlier constitutional petition. The petitioner subsequently filed a civil suit seeking identical relief, which the Civil Court dismissed on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction and the bar of res judicata. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the rights of the parties concerning the disputed plot had been conclusively decided on merits and law by the High Court in the prior constitutional proceedings. A civil court lacks jurisdiction to sit in appeal over or nullify an order passed by the High Court. Consequently, the petitioner could not re-agitate the same matter via a civil suit. The petition was found devoid of merit and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge an order of a Notified Officer in a civil suit when that exact order has already been upheld by the High Court in constitutional proceedings?
  • Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to sit in judgment over an order passed on merits and law by the High Court?
  • Can the principle of res judicata bar a civil suit without recording evidence where the relief claimed was previously denied by the High Court on the same facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamida Begum vs Mst. Nazir Bano and 4 others1991 CLC 288 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameeda Begum vs Mst. Hasan Bano1991 MLD 776 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameeda Begum And Others vs Muhammad Lateef And Other1991 SCMR 1518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-06
  evacuee propertysettlement scheme VIIIavailable urban propertypermanent constructiontransfer of propertypublic auctionwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee building site in Rawalpindi. The petitioners, successors of an original claimant, sought the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme VIII, asserting that permanent construction existed on the site at the time of their application. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected their claim, treating the land as undisposed evacuee property, and subsequently auctioned portions of the land to third parties. While the High Court partially accepted the petitioners' writ petition by quashing certain administrative orders regarding the remaining land, it refused to invalidate the auction proceedings of the portions already transferred. The core legal question is whether property containing permanent construction at the time of a pending transfer application under Settlement Scheme VIII can be legally classified as 'available property' for disposal under the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Property, 1977. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the necessity to examine whether the property could be disposed of as an open building site while the petitioners' transfer application remained pending.

  Questions settled

  • Can property containing permanent construction at the time of a pending transfer application under Settlement Scheme VIII be treated as available property for disposal?
  • Does the existence of a pending application for transfer of property preclude its disposal as an open building site through public auction?
  • Whether the High Court can uphold auction proceedings while quashing administrative orders related to the same property's transfer entitlement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajran Bibi vs Khalid Abbas and others1991 CLC 831 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajran Bibi vs Additional District Judge and others1991 MLD 2357 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hafsa Bibi vs Zamir Ahmed Oidwai1991 CLC 1170 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Zohra vs The State And Other1991 SCMR 2045 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-29
  common intentionvicarious liabilitycriminal conspiracysimultaneous incidentsacquittalcriminal appealmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding the acquittal of certain respondents for murder and other offences. The core legal question was whether two separate groups of accused, who simultaneously attacked victims at two distinct locations—a house and a cattle-shed—could be held vicariously liable for the offences committed by the other group under the doctrine of common intention. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings that there was no evidence of a conspiracy or community of intention connecting the two distinct groups. The court held that the respondents who attacked the cattle-shed did not participate in the murder at the house and committed no overt acts related to that specific crime. The court affirmed the principle that vicarious liability under common intention requires evidence of a shared purpose or conspiracy, and cannot be presumed simply because incidents occurred simultaneously or were motivated by a similar underlying grievance, especially when the incidents take place at separate, distinct locations.

  Questions settled

  • Can accused persons be held vicariously liable for offences committed at a different location where they were not present and committed no overt acts?
  • Does the simultaneous occurrence of criminal acts at two different locations automatically establish a common intention among all participants?
  • Is evidence of a conspiracy required to establish vicarious liability when multiple groups commit separate crimes motivated by the same grievance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatimah And Another vs Mst. Sablan And 7 Other1991 SC MR 2530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-20
  Order X Rule 4 CPCpenal provisionnon-suitingpersonal appearancediscretionminor plaintiffsfemale litigantsremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the High Court's judgment accepting the respondents' first appeal against an order of remand and maintaining the trial court's order non-suiting the appellants under Order X, Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for alleged failure to appear in person. The core legal questions involved the exercise of discretion under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order X and the strict establishment of conditions precedent under sub-rule (1). The Supreme Court held that the penal provision requires strict establishment of non-compliance and fulfillment of all statutory conditions, and that given the appellants were females and minors, it was not a fit case to exercise discretion to pronounce judgment against them. The appeal was allowed and the case remanded for trial on merits, laying down the principle that Order X Rule 4(2) is a penal provision requiring strict proof of prior non-compliance and that discretion to penalize a party must be exercised judiciously, particularly in cases involving female and minor litigants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the question of exercise of discretion allowed by the second part of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 requires the Court to examine it specifically?
  • Whether the discretion to pronounce judgment under Order X Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 should be exercised against female plaintiffs who are minors?
  • Is Order X Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a penal provision that requires strict establishment of non-compliance and lawfulness of the preceding order?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima and others vs Muhammad Din and others1991 CLC 1704 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima And Another vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 1190 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima And 3 Others vs Noor Hussain1991 SC M R 1959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-04
  ejectmentbona fide personal requirementlandlord and tenantpleadings and proofleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by landladies arises from a judgment of the High Court reversing the Rent Controller's ejectment order against the tenant on the grounds of bona fide personal requirement. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether there was a change of ground for ejectment, whether the landladies could be denied ejectment without proving incapacity to run a business, and whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Rent Controller's finding on personal requirement. The Supreme Court held that the core fact of personal need remained unchanged despite a change in the relative assisting in the business, and that a landlord is not legally required to prove they are badly in need of earning a livelihood to seek eviction for personal use. The appeal was accepted, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Rent Controller's eviction order was restored. The Court laid down the principle that the method or anticipatory details of how a personal business need will be satisfied do not alter the core fact of the need itself.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a change in the identity of the relative assisting in a proposed business constitutes a change of ground for ejectment?
  • Is a landlord or landlady required to establish that they are badly in need of earning their livelihood to obtain an ejectment order for personal use?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in reversing a finding of bona fide personal requirement based on discrepancies in anticipatory evidence regarding how the need will be satisfied?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Faridan And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 968 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghausia Bibi vs Assistant Commissioner1991 CLC 1684 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Firdaus Begum and Other vs The Additional District Judge, LahoreK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 50 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Fazlan Mai vs Rab Nawaz and another-1991 P C r. L J 12 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fazlan Bibi vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1832 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fazal Nishan And Others vs Ghulam Oadir And Other1991 SCMR 758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-20
  inheritance under customlimited ownermaintenance holderwidow's estateleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal by the High Court in a dispute concerning inheritance. The last male owner, Suba Khan, died around 1933 under custom, leaving behind a widow, two sons, and two daughters. Upon his death, a portion of the land was mutated in the name of the widow, whose subsequent alienation was challenged by the sons in a previous suit. Following the widow's death in 1968, the respondents (sons' side) filed a suit claiming she was merely a maintenance holder, whereas the petitioners (daughters' side) contended she was a limited owner. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the District Judge and High Court ruled in favor of the respondents. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the widow inherited as a limited owner or held the land in lieu of maintenance, and to consider the broader legal developments of inheritance law since 1948, including the effect of the 1983 Ordinance on the daughters' right to inherit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a widow under custom inherits as a limited owner or merely receives land in lieu of maintenance in the presence of sons?
  • Does a previous declaratory judgment regarding a widow's alienation preclude co-heirs from claiming she was only a maintenance holder?
  • How do subsequent legal developments and statutory changes in inheritance law since 1948 affect the devolution of property left by a last male owner who died under custom?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima vs The State1991 MLD 2561 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Bibi vs Jan Muhammad1991 SCMR 1031 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-10
  restitutionex parte ejectmentexecution of ordersappellate jurisdictionrent controlpossession restoration
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a High Court order directing the restoration of possession of a property to the respondent following the setting aside of an ex parte ejectment order. The appellant challenged the order, arguing that the respondent had obtained the property lease through fraud and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to order restitution, asserting that only the Rent Controller possessed such authority. The Supreme Court held that the restitution was a necessary consequence of the initial ex parte ejectment order being set aside by consent. The Court determined that the allegation of fraud regarding the lease was irrelevant to the immediate issue of restitution, as the title dispute remained sub judice. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under the original Section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the appellate authority retained the power to execute its own orders. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that restitution is a mandatory process to restore parties to their original positions when a decree is reversed, regardless of separate pending title litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a party entitled to restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when an ex parte ejectment order is set aside?
  • Does an appellate authority have the power to execute its own orders under the original Section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a claim of fraud regarding the underlying title of a property defeat an application for restitution of possession following the reversal of an ejectment order?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Bibi And Others vs Muhammad Amin And Other1991 SCMR 315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-28
  civil revisionevacuee propertyleave to appealconcurrent findings of factdeclaration suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' civil revision, which had upheld the appellate judgment dismissing their suit for a declaration of inheritance regarding land previously belonging to a Sikh lady, Mst. Malan. The core legal question concerns whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the evacuee nature of the property and its subsequent lawful allotment and purchase can be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate and revisional courts, determining that the property was evacuee property, validly allotted, and purchased by the respondents, were based on evidence and thus binding, rendering the petitioners without any right to retain the land. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding property status and ownership, supported by evidence, are unassailable in revision, and a party without legal entitlement cannot challenge a rightful owner's title.

  Questions settled

  • Are concurrent findings of fact regarding the evacuee nature of property open to challenge in civil revision?
  • Can a party without a legal right to property maintain a challenge against a rightful purchaser from an allottee?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farzana vs Syed Muhammad Afzal and another-1991 P Cr. L J 758 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27
  habeas corpuscustody of minorHizanattender ageSection 491 Cr.P.C.guardianship proceedingssummary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by a mother seeking the custody of her 20-month-old minor son, who was allegedly confined by the respondent father. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Section 491, Cr.P.C. to restore custody of a minor to the mother when parallel proceedings regarding guardianship were already pending before a Guardian Judge. The Court held that the pendency of proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a habeas corpus petition under Section 491, Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that the proceedings under Section 491 are summary in nature and distinct from substantive guardianship proceedings, and that the two provisions are not mutually exclusive. Consequently, the Court determined that the detention of the minor by the father was unlawful against the mother's wishes and ordered the immediate restoration of the minor's custody to the mother, prioritizing the welfare and tender age of the child.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 bar the High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are proceedings under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 mutually exclusive?
  • Can a High Court order the restoration of a minor's custody to the mother in a summary habeas corpus petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farida and 2 others vs Rehmatullah and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-12
  inheritanceMuslim personal lawretrospective effectshariat applicationsuccessioncustomary lawdaughters share
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which partially dismissed the appellants' civil revision in an inheritance matter. The dispute concerned the estate of Nadir Khan, who died in 1972-73 before the formal extension of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, to the relevant area in 1976. The core legal question was whether the statutory provisions and Islamic succession rules apply retrospectively to deaths occurring prior to the formal application of the Act or during the prevalence of custom. The Supreme Court relied on its precedent in Muzaffar Khan v. Roshan Jan, holding that upon the effect taking place from the Shariat Appellate Bench decision, the words restricting application ceased to have effect, and the relevant laws are to be given retrospective effect. Consequently, a deceased Muslim is deemed to have died under the domain of Muslim Law regardless of whether death occurred prior to the 1962 Act. The appeal was allowed, granting the female appellants their full share under Islamic law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, has retrospective effect regarding succession to the estate of a Muslim deceased?
  • Does the death of a Muslim landowner prior to the formal extension of the Shariat Application Act to certain areas deprive daughters of their inheritance under Islamic Law?
  • What is the effect of the Shariat Appellate Bench decision on the phrase 'subject to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force' in section 2 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962?
  Read full judgment →