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. 232594 judgments in total.
- Mst. KANIZ FATIMA and another vs MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and 4 others1985 MLD 304 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA and another/Petitioners vs GHULAM HUSSAIN and 101985 CLC 217 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. KANEEZ BEGUM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1738 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. KALSOOM AKHTAR vs Rana MUHAMMAD TALIB KHAN1985 MLD 195 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. K A LSOOM vs MUHAMMAD HANIF1985 CLC 1917 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. JIA and another vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1013(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. JEHAN BEGUM vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, HYDERABADPLD 1985 Rev. 23 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1982-07-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. JANTAN vs Mst. MARYAM1985 MLD 100 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. JANNA T through her Legal Representatives vs CUSTODIAN EVACUEE1985 MLD 325 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. JANNA T BIBI and others vs AHMAD and 4 others1985 MLD 1095 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. JANNA T AND 9 camas vs ABDUL KADIR AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 18 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. JANAT B1BI vs MUHAMMAD RIAZ1985 PLD Azad J& K 11 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-07-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. JAMILA BIBI vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE and 3 others1985 MLD 485 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. IZZAT vs KARIM BUX THROUGH HIS 3 HEIRSPLD 1985 Rev. 61 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1972-07-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. ITEBAR JANA vs THE STATE1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 160 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL And Another1985 SCMR 1691 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, which granted bail to the respondent, Muhammad Asghar, who was accused of murder. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the order granting bail to the accused should be interfered with, particularly in light of concerns that the High Court's observations might prejudice the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, primarily noting that the trial was scheduled to commence shortly, and therefore, it was inappropriate to interfere with the bail order at that stage. Regarding the petitioner's apprehension that the High Court's observations would adversely affect the prosecution, the Supreme Court held that such concerns were unfounded. The Court established the principle that a trial court is duty-bound to decide a case based on its own independent assessment of the evidence adduced before it, rather than being influenced by observations made during bail proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without disturbing the bail order.
Questions settled- Does an observation made by a High Court Judge during bail proceedings bind the trial court in its final adjudication?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with a bail order when the trial is imminent?
- Mst. IQBAL BIBI alias BALO and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1377 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. IQBAL BEGUM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT1985 PLD Lahore 342 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. IQBAL BEGUM And Others vs AMIH KHAN And Another1985 SCMR 1749 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning the sale of land in village Mirjan. The core legal question was whether the defendant-vendee's admission regarding the plaintiff's superior right of pre-emption was correctly interpreted by the lower courts as applying to the entire suit property, or if it was limited to a specific portion. The trial, appellate, and High Court had all concluded that the defendant conceded the plaintiff's superior right across all disputed Khatas. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts committed a patent error by extending an admission concerning only one specific Khewat (Khewat No. 355) to the entire suit property, which included a larger portion (Khewat No. 345) where the plaintiff was not a co-sharer. Furthermore, the courts failed to adjudicate other grounds for the plaintiff's alleged superior right, such as ownership in the estate. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts and remanded the case for a fresh determination on the merits of the plaintiff's superior right of pre-emption.
Questions settled- Can an admission regarding a specific portion of land be legally extended to the entire suit property in a pre-emption case?
- Does a co-sharer in one Khewat automatically possess a superior right of pre-emption over the entire land sold?
- Is a court required to independently determine the superiority of a pre-emption claim when the defendant's admission is limited in scope?
- Mst. INAYAT BEGUM vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE-B, LAHORE1985 PTD 375 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition arose from income-tax recovery proceedings initiated by the Income-tax authorities against the petitioner while a reference on the matter was pending before the High Court. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had set aside the assessments for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 but referred a question of law to the High Court regarding whether it should have cancelled the assessments instead of merely setting them aside. While this reference was pending, the Income-tax Officer passed a fresh assessment order. The core legal question was whether the Income-tax authorities could proceed with a fresh assessment while a reference concerning the validity of the initial assessment's disposition was pending before the High Court. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that when a reference is pending before the High Court on whether an assessment should be set aside or cancelled, the Income-tax authorities cannot treat the assessment as simply set aside or cancelled and must await the High Court's decision. Consequently, the fresh assessment order was declared to be of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Can the Income-tax authorities pass a fresh assessment order while a reference is pending before the High Court regarding the validity of the Tribunal's order setting aside the original assessment?
- Are Income-tax authorities required to await the decision of the High Court on a referred question of law before taking further assessment proceedings on the same subject matter?
- Mst. Inayat Begum vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Zone-B, Lahore.PTCL 1985 (CL) 152 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. HUMA GHAURI vs ZAHEERUDDIN and 4 others1985 CLC 762 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. HAYAT KHATOON vs ALLAH DINO and another1985 CLC 1343 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. HAYAT BEGUM vs NOOR DIN and others1985 CLC 2033(2) · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. HASHMI BEGUM vs Mst. ALYA ZOHRA BEGUM1985 MLD 1514 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. HASHMAT BIBI And Others vs GULZAR MUHAMMAD And Another1985 SCMR 870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. HANIFAN BIBI vs MAQBOOL AHMAD1985 CLC 1900 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. HAMIDUN NISA and another vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIND1985 MLD 274 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. HAMIDA BEGUM vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY And Other1985 SCMR 1560 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the validity of land sales made by Mst. Iqbal Begum, a Mazhabi Sikh, to members of another agricultural tribe without the Deputy Commissioner's sanction, and whether such land became evacuee property. The primary issue was whether a person declared a member of an 'agricultural tribe' under the Punjab Alienation of Lands Act, 1900, loses that status upon converting from Sikhism to Islam, thereby exempting their land alienations from the Act's sanction requirements. The Supreme Court upheld its previous Full Bench decision, ruling that conversion to Islam does not strip an individual of their status as a member of a notified agricultural tribe. Consequently, the sales without the required sanction remained void, and the land did not become evacuee property. The court affirmed that religious conversion does not alter one's caste or tribal status for the purposes of the Punjab Alienation of Lands Act, 1900, and that the Supreme Court retains ultimate jurisdiction to interpret such legal questions regardless of prior administrative findings by the Custodian of Evacuee Property.
Questions settled- Does conversion to Islam strip an individual of their status as a member of a notified agricultural tribe under the Punjab Alienation of Lands Act, 1900?
- Are land sales by a member of an agricultural tribe to another agricultural tribe void if made without the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to determine the status of land under the Punjab Alienation of Lands Act, 1900, notwithstanding prior findings by the Custodian of Evacuee Property?
- Mst. HAMIDA and anothers vs MAKHEY KHAN and others1985 P Cr. L J 2507 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. HALIMA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR1985 CLC 2492 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. HALEEMAN vs REHMAT ALI And Other1985 SCMR 1273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns a dispute over agricultural land originally allotted to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest in 1954 and transferred to him in 1964. Following his death, the respondents inherited the property and filed a suit for possession against the petitioners, who were alleged trespassers. During the pendency of this suit, the property was purportedly transferred to the petitioners under Scheme No. VII without formal resumption proceedings. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, a decision upheld by the appellate courts. The core legal question was whether the civil court lost jurisdiction once the property was transferred to the petitioners under Scheme No. VII, necessitating the respondents to approach settlement authorities instead. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' findings. The holding establishes that where property has already been validly transferred to a predecessor-in-interest, it ceases to be available for settlement; consequently, a subsequent transfer under a settlement scheme is ineffective, and the civil court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate possession against those claiming under such an invalid transfer.
Questions settled- Does a civil court lose jurisdiction over a property dispute if the property is transferred under a settlement scheme during the pendency of a suit?
- Can property already transferred to a predecessor-in-interest be validly settled in favor of another party under Scheme No. VII?
- Is a transfer of property under a settlement scheme valid if made without proper resumption proceedings?
- Mst. HALEEMA vs SHAD MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 42 OTHERS1985 PLD Peshawar 29 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. HAJRAN vs GHULAM SARWAR KHAN AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Lahore 214 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. HAJRA PAREKH vs M. RASHID-UD-DIN1985 CLC 256 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hajiani GHULAM FATIMA vs Mst. Hajiani ALLAH BACHAI1985 CLC 1943 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. GULZAR BEGUM vs RIAZ MALIK and 3 others1985 CLC 93 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. GUL PERVEEN and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 237 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. GUL FAROSHA vs UMAR GUL and 11 others1985 CLC 810 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The dispute in this revision petition relates to agricultural land originally owned by the plaintiff's father, who sold it jointly to the plaintiff and her sister via a registered sale-deed in 1954. The lower courts dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and possession, holding that it was barred by the principle of res judicata based on an earlier 1955 compromise suit and barred by limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Upon review, the Peshawar High Court held that the lower courts misread the evidence. The court ruled that the earlier suit was resolved via compromise without any direct and substantial issue or judicial determination regarding the suit land, thus rendering res judicata inapplicable. Furthermore, the court held that pleadings cannot be treated as evidence without the maker being examined, and that the suit was within time since the plaintiff had been in continuous possession as owner and the cause of action arose only when her title was denied. The revision was accepted and the plaintiff's suit was decreed.
Questions settled- Does a suit dismissed on the basis of a compromise operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings where the matter was not directly and substantially in issue?
- Can pleadings, such as a written statement or a plaint, be treated as substantive evidence without the person who filed the same being examined as a witness in court?
- Does a suit for declaration of title and possession remain within time when the plaintiff has been continuously recorded as owner and in possession in the revenue records and files suit upon the first denial of title?
- Are findings of courts below based on a misreading and disregard of evidence open to interference in revisional jurisdiction?
- Mst. GUGOO vs THE STATE1985 PLD Peshawar 114 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Mst. Gugoo, who was charged alongside her brother for lurking house trespass and causing hurt to the complainant, Mst. Bakhmaley. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a Pardanasheen lady, was entitled to pre-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly given the nature of the alleged offence and the potential for irreparable injury to her honour and dignity. The Peshawar High Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, holding that the petitioner was entitled to relief. The court reasoned that the petitioner is a woman, and her case falls within the discretionary ambit of the law regarding bail for women. Furthermore, the court established the principle that Pardanasheen women should generally not be refused pre-arrest bail, especially in cases involving non-bailable offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly where there are credible apprehensions of harm to their dignity and honour upon arrest.
Questions settled- Is a Pardanasheen woman entitled to pre-arrest bail when charged with a non-bailable offence not falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the court have the discretion to grant bail to a woman accused of an offence not punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for ten years?
- What factors should a court consider when exercising its power to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mst. GHULAM SAKINA vs KHALID MASOOD AKHTAR NIAZI1985 MLD 306 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. GHULAM FATIMA vs Haji SALEH MUHAMMAD And Other1985 SCMR 1998 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from three constitutional petitions challenging the disposal of property by the Member, Board of Revenue, which the High Court dismissed primarily on the ground that the appellant lacked locus standi. The appellant, the wife of a pre-Independence owner, claimed rights over the property, having managed it and collected rent from tenants for years, a fact recognized by the administration. The core legal question was whether the appellant possessed sufficient interest in the property to maintain a constitutional petition against the transfer of said property to the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, having a recognized, long-standing, and arguable interest in the property, did indeed possess the necessary locus standi to challenge the administrative decision. Consequently, the High Court's dismissal on the ground of lack of standing was set aside. The principle laid down is that a party who has a live, vital, and arguable interest in property, supported by administrative recognition and prior dealings, cannot be summarily denied the right to seek judicial review on the basis of lacking locus standi.
Questions settled- Does a person who has been recognized by the administration as having the right to collect rent from a property possess sufficient locus standi to challenge the transfer of that property in a constitutional petition?
- Can a High Court dismiss a constitutional petition solely on the ground of lack of locus standi when the petitioner has demonstrated an arguable, vital interest in the subject matter?
- Is it appropriate for an appellate court to remand a case to the High Court for a decision on merits when the High Court dismissed the petition prematurely on a preliminary point of standing?
- Mst. GHULAM FATIMA and another vs MUNAWAR BEGUM and 2 others1985 CLC 2039 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. GHULAM BIBI AND OTHERS vs SARSA KHAN AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a second appeal in a land exchange dispute. The core legal question examined was whether the plaintiffs should have been permitted to amend their plaint to convert a suit for declaration of ownership into a suit for specific performance of a contract of exchange. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in refusing the amendment on grounds of delay, alleged negligence, or lack of bona fides, emphasizing that procedural rules are designed to advance justice and determine real questions in controversy rather than to entrap litigants through technicalities. The Court ruled that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed at any stage of proceedings, including appellate stages, provided they do not change the fundamental cause of action or the basic nature of the suit. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment set aside, the amendment of the plaint permitted subject to costs, and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff can be permitted to amend a plaint to convert a suit for declaration into a suit for specific performance of a contract?
- Does mere delay in applying for the amendment of a pleading justify its refusal by the court?
- What is the scope and interpretation of the expression 'at any stage of the proceeding' under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether an amendment of a plaint should be allowed if it does not change the fundamental cause of action or the nature of the suit?
- Mst. GHULAB JAN and anothers vs THE STATE and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1162 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-02-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. GHAFOORAN vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and another1985 CLC 2263 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. FAZILAT BEGUM and 7 others vs ABDUL AZIZ and 2 others1985 CLC 1933 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. FAZAL KHAIR and others vs Mst. KANEEZ AKHTAR and others1985 CLC 2023 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. FAZAL JAN AND ANOTHERs vs 2ND MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.W. F.1985 PLD Peshawar 27 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. FAZAL BIBI vs Mst. KANIZ FATIMA1985 CLC 1373 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. FAUZIA HUSSAIN vs Mian KHADIM HUSSAIN1985 PLD Lahore 165 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. FARUKH NISA vs SAFDAR AHMED AND 6 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 639 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This rent appeal arises from the dismissal of an ejectment application filed by the appellant-landlady against her tenants, wherein she sought possession of the premises for the personal use of her married daughter. The core legal questions were whether the statutory provision allowing eviction for the requirement of a landlord's 'children' extends to independent or married children, and what constitutes 'good faith' requirement under the law. The Court held that the term 'children' in the statute encompasses both dependent and independent/married children, rejecting the notion that it is restricted to dependents. However, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the application, ruling that the landlady failed to substantiate her claim of 'good faith' requirement. The Court established that 'good faith' requires more than a mere desire; it necessitates an objective demonstration of reasonable need. The landlord must provide specific details regarding existing accommodation, family size, and the inadequacy of current space to enable the Rent Controller to properly assess the genuineness of the claim, as mere ipse dixit is insufficient.
Questions settled- Does the statutory term 'children' in the context of a landlord's personal requirement include married or independent children?
- Is a landlord's mere desire or intention sufficient to establish 'good faith' requirement for eviction?
- What specific details must a landlord provide to the Rent Controller to prove that a requirement for premises is bona fide?
- Does the Rent Controller have a duty to objectively assess the reasonableness of a landlord's claimed need for premises?
- Mst. FARIDA MINTO vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1985 CLC 1909(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. DILSHAD AKHTAR vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE And Another1985 SCMR 1986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court dismissing the appellants' constitutional petition arising out of a settlement dispute. The core legal question concerns the jurisdiction of the Member Board of Revenue acting as Chief Settlement Commissioner to entertain and inquire into a settlement matter after the promulgation of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974, and the prematurity of challenging an interim assumption of jurisdiction through a constitutional petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the constitutional petition before the High Court was premature as the Member Board of Revenue had not yet rendered a final decision on the merits, and it was improper to invoke writ jurisdiction prior to a final determination. The appeal was dismissed while observing that nothing in the judgments should influence the final decision on merits by the Member Board of Revenue.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition against an interim order assuming jurisdiction in a settlement dispute is premature before a final decision on merits is rendered?
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have jurisdiction to inquire into a settlement matter under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974?
- Mst. DIANAT FATIMA and 8 others vs Mir ABBAS KHAN and another1985 CLC 239 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. CHUNNO BEGUM vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), KHAIRPUR And Other1985 SCMR 1331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged the judgment of a Letters Patent Bench of the Sind High Court dismissing the appellant's appeal regarding the cancellation of her land allotment. The appellant, a claimant displaced person, was allotted land in 1960. Subsequently, the third respondent, whose prior allotment covered the same land and was made without notice to him, applied for cancellation of the appellant's allotment, which was ultimately cancelled by the Settlement Authorities under Section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The core legal questions were whether the Settlement Authorities were competent to cancel the allotment after a lapse of time without a formal condonation of delay under appeal or revision provisions, and the scope of powers under Section 11 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction exercisable under Section 11 of the Act is not subject to any period of limitation and is distinct from appellate and revisional powers, allowing the Settlement Authorities to correct a patent error and terminate an illegal allotment made behind the back of a prior allottee. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction exercisable by Settlement Authorities under Section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 is subject to any period of limitation?
- Can powers under Section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 be assimilated to the revisional jurisdiction provided under Section 19(1) of the said Act?
- Whether an allotment of land made behind the back of a prior allottee and without cancelling the prior allotment is a nullity in the eye of law?
- Are Settlement Authorities empowered to correct a patent error resulting in inconsistent allotment orders independently of the provisions of appeal and revision?
- Mst. CHOTI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER,1985 MLD 156 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. CHANGI vs ADDITIONAL COMISSIONER HYDERABAD AND IMAM BUX AND OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 79 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-07-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. CHANGAL vs SAIN BAKHSHPLD 1985 Rev. 106 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1972-01-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. CHANANI BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ and others1985 MLD 310 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. BULBULAI and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 222 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. BILQUIS BEGUM vs THE STATE1985 MLD 829 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. BILQUEES FATIMA vs DISTRICT JUDGE and others1985 CLC 2384 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. BILQEES vs GHULAM MOHY UD DIN1985 CLC 1868 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. BIBI CHANGI vs Mst. BHERAIPLD 1985 Rev. 67 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1972-08-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. BIB1 MEHR JANA alias BIBI vs MUHAMMAD AKHYA and others1985 CLC 1635 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. BHAGAN AND ANOTHER vs Mst. MEHRUNNISA AND ANOTHERPLD 1985 Rev. 83 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-07-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. BAVI alias REHMAT BIBI vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER1985 MLD 43 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. BASHIRAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 724 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. BASHIRAN vs SULTAN1985 MLD 133 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. BASHIRAN vs KHADIM HUSSAIN And Other1985 SCMR 577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a land settlement dispute. The petitioner challenged the High Court's decision, which dismissed her writ petition on the grounds that the subject matter had already been conclusively settled by a prior compromise between the parties in earlier litigation. The petitioner argued that she had entered into the previous compromise under a misapprehension of her legal and factual rights, and therefore, the Settlement Authorities should have been permitted to re-open the matter. The Supreme Court rejected this contention. Upon reviewing the record, the Court found that the earlier compromise was detailed, deliberate, and based on mutual consideration to avoid prolonged litigation. The Court held that a compromise judgment, once entered into by parties with full authority and representation, constitutes a binding settlement that precludes the re-opening of the same issues. Finding no merit in the claim of misapprehension, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment and dismissed the petition, upholding the finality of the compromise decree.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge a compromise decree on the grounds of alleged misapprehension of rights after the compromise has been acted upon?
- Does a compromise judgment in an earlier round of litigation operate as a bar to re-opening the same dispute before Settlement Authorities?
- Is a detailed compromise agreement entered into by counsel with authority binding on the parties?
- Mst. BASHIRAN BIBI vs S.H.O. POLICE STATION, ZAFARWAL and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 2165 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. BASHIRAN And Another vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And Another1985 SCMR 123 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. BARKAT-UN-NISA vs HUMAYUN PARAKAH and 2 others1985 MLD 523 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. BARKAT JAN vs HABIB KHAN AND 6 OTHERS1985 PLD SC (AJ&K) 60 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. BAKHTAN vs Haji ALLAH WASAYA1985 CLC 2544 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. BAGGI vs Mst. JAN BEGUM and 7 others1985 CLC 1573 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. AZRA SYED vs Syed TANVIR ABBAS SHAMSI1985 MLD 451 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. AZRA BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD AZAM1985 MLD 509 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. ATTARI through her Legal Heirs vs BADLU (through his Legal Heirs) and another1985 CLC 780 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. ASMAT ARA BEGUM vs Mst. KHATOON BIBI and others1985 MLD 1247 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. ASGHARI BEGUM And Others vs SARDAR MUHAMMAD And Other1985 SCMR 177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, heirs of a former occupant of a godown, filed a petition alleging contempt of court against the respondents. The core dispute arose from a 1961 Settlement Commissioner's order, which declared the godown separate property to be auctioned, a decision that attained finality upon the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal by the Supreme Court in 1972. The petitioners alleged that during the pendency of that litigation, the respondents fraudulently obtained the transfer of the property through a forged and ante-dated C.S. Form under Scheme No. VIII, subsequently obtaining a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) and executing sales of the property. The petitioners contended that these actions constituted disobedience of the Supreme Court's 1972 order. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' allegations regarding the forgery of the transfer form and the order of transfer required an extensive inquiry into disputed questions of fact. Consequently, the Court determined that such matters could not be adjudicated for the first time in contempt proceedings. The petition was dismissed as no case for contempt was established.
Questions settled- Can allegations of forgery and fraud regarding property transfer be adjudicated for the first time in contempt proceedings?
- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into disputed questions of fact during contempt proceedings?
- Mst. ASGHARI And Another vs SHARAFAT ALI And Other1985 SCMR 643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed their civil revision in limine against the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The underlying dispute involved the identity, extent, and demarcation of evacuee properties transferred to the respective predecessors of the parties, namely House No. C-35/A and House No. C-34 situated in Bhakkar. The trial court had appointed a Settlement Inspector as a local Commissioner to inspect the spot, and based on his report and other evidence, concluded that the petitioners had illegally occupied a portion belonging to the respondents' property. The core legal question was whether the local Commissioner had exceeded his mandate and whether such a report could form the basis of adjudication in a factual demarcation dispute. The Supreme Court held that the appointment of a local Commissioner for spot inspection and demarcation was proper, and the concurrent factual findings based on evidence and the commissioner's report were unexceptionable. The Court laid down the principle that a dispute concerning the identity and demarcation of property is essentially factual, and where lower courts have considered all relevant material reasonably, leave to appeal will be refused.
Questions settled- Whether the appointment of a local Commissioner is proper for determining the identity and demarcation of properties in dispute?
- Can a local Commissioner's report be made the basis of adjudication after inviting objections and considering it alongside other evidence?
- Does a dispute regarding the identity and demarcation of property raise a substantial question of law warranting leave to appeal?
- Mst. ANWAR JEHAN AHMAD vs Mst. BAGHWANTI1985 MLD 157 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. ANWAR BIBI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1977 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMNA vs NIZAMUDDIN and 3 others1985 MLD 271 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMIRUN NISA and 10 others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1985 MLD 492 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMINA BEGUM vs ALEEM- UR-REHMAN1985 CLC 2942 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMINA BEGUM REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS vs SH. MUHAMMAD NAZIR AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the classification and allotment of land in Rawalpindi, originally recorded as a brick kiln in revenue records. The core legal question was whether the land's nature, for the purpose of disposal under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, should be determined by its actual use at the time of Partition in 1947 or by subsequent administrative reclassification. The Settlement Commissioner had failed to consider the land's status at Partition, erroneously treating it as culturable land. The High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, corrected this error, holding that the land's status at Partition is the determinative factor for its disposal. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that administrative authorities cannot define the limits of their own jurisdiction regarding jurisdictional facts. The Court held that when an administrative authority fails to apply the correct legal test—specifically the actual use at Partition—it commits an error of law and jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court correctly intervened to set aside the erroneous findings without needing to remand the case for further fact-finding.
Questions settled- Does the actual use of land at the time of Partition determine its classification for disposal under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act?
- Can an administrative authority define the limits of its own jurisdiction regarding jurisdictional facts?
- Is the High Court empowered to correct an error of law and jurisdiction by an administrative authority without remanding the case?
- Mst. AMERA SAEED vs Syed HASSAN HAMID and 2 others1985 CLC 792 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. ALLAH WASAI And Others vs YAR MUHAMMAD1985 SCMR 1605 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, who were unsuccessful defendants in a civil suit, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing their regular second appeal. The respondent had instituted a suit in 1967 seeking possession of an immovable residential property purchased via a registered deed in 1950, claiming the petitioners were in permissive possession. The trial court dismissed the suit based on limitation and adverse possession, but the first appellate court decreed the suit after finding the possession was permissive, which decision was affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the appellate court went beyond the pleadings and whether the suit was time-barred due to adverse possession. The Court held that concurrent findings of fact regarding permissive possession based on family relationship and the boundaries in the registered sale-deed were sustainable, and no question of law required further examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that permissive possession by family members does not ripen into adverse possession.
Questions settled- Whether possession among family members residing jointly can be treated as adverse possession for the purpose of limitation?
- Can an appellate court specify property in a decree based on the boundaries indicated in a registered sale-deed?
- Does a concurrent finding of fact regarding permissive possession warrant interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Mst. AKHTARUNNISA AND ANOTHER vs JAN MUHAMMADPLD 1985 Rev. 82 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-07-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. AKHTAR SULTANA vs Syed ABDUL QAYUM1985 CLC 534 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. AKHTAR BEGUM vs MIAN AZIZ And Other1985 SCMR 1617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the ownership and possession of agricultural land following competing claims based on separate agreements to sell. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff, holding an unregistered agreement to sell, could maintain a suit for declaration and injunction against a subsequent vendee, and whether the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act could be invoked by a plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that while an unregistered sale agreement does not confer full title due to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff could rely on Section 53-A as a shield to protect possession against the vendor and subsequent purchasers. The Court clarified that Section 41 regarding ostensible owners was inapplicable as the vendor was the actual owner. The Court affirmed that a plaintiff may seek protection of possession based on part performance, provided the contract is enforceable. Consequently, the Court modified the relief to declare the plaintiff's right to possession under an enforceable contract rather than absolute ownership.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff use Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act as a shield to protect possession in a suit?
- Does an unregistered agreement to sell confer full title to the purchaser under the Transfer of Property Act?
- Does Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act apply when the transferor is the actual owner of the property?
- Can extrinsic evidence be used to supply missing details in an agreement to sell to satisfy the requirements of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act?
- Mst. AKBARI BEGUM vs 'THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 123 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. AISHA vs MANZOOR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a revision petition regarding the custody of a minor girl. The core legal question was whether the custody of a 12-year-old minor should remain with her maternal grandmother or be restored to her natural father. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the District Judge, which had restored custody to the father. The Court held that while courts generally prefer the mother in custody disputes, the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration. In this instance, the Court found that the father was the more suitable guardian because the mother had remarried, and the maternal grandmother had failed to provide the minor with education. The Court further observed that the minor's own preference is not always the decisive factor, as children can be influenced by the custodian. The key principle laid down is that the welfare of the minor is the primary test in custody matters, and a father may be preferred over a maternal grandmother when the mother has remarried and the grandmother has failed to ensure the minor's education.
Questions settled- Is the preference of a minor child always the decisive factor in determining custody?
- Can a father be granted custody of a minor over a maternal grandmother when the mother has remarried?
- Does the failure of a guardian to provide education for a minor impact the determination of the minor's welfare?
- Mst. AISHA BIBI vs Syed SAGHIRUL HASSAN And Other1985 SCMR 1758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was challenged on the basis that the appeal was improperly constituted due to the death of the original appellant and respondents prior to the filing of the petition. The core legal question was whether an appeal filed against deceased parties, where the legal representatives were not impleaded despite being known and recorded in the lower court's judgment, could be maintained or cured. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent and defective from its inception. It rejected the petitioner's excuse that the certified copy of the judgment failed to mention the legal heirs, finding this claim contradicted by the record. The Court determined that because the petitioner failed to provide a plausible explanation for the gross negligence in failing to implead the correct parties, the appeal could not be sustained. The principle laid down is that while the Court has the power to remedy procedural defects, it will not exercise such discretion where the appeal is fundamentally defective at the time of filing and the party fails to demonstrate sufficient cause or faultless conduct.
Questions settled- Can an appeal filed against deceased parties be maintained if the legal representatives were not impleaded at the time of filing?
- Does the Supreme Court have the discretion to remedy a defect where an appeal was filed against deceased parties without sufficient cause?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal competent if the appellant fails to implead the correct legal representatives despite the record showing their names?
- Mst. AISHA and 7 others vs AHMAD DIN1985 CLC 2443 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. AHMEDUNNISA And Others vs Mst. PARVEEN SIRAJ1985 SCMR 2012 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court upholding the eviction of the petitioners from demised premises on the ground of personal bona fide need of the respondent-landlord. The core legal question was whether a landlord who resides abroad and has foreign nationality can maintain a claim for the personal bona fide use of property in Pakistan during occasional visits. The Supreme Court held that the requirement for personal occupation, even if temporary and for occasional visits, constitutes valid own occupation under the law, preventing landlords from being denied their property rights merely due to foreign residence. The key principle laid down is that a landlord residing abroad is entitled to seek eviction for personal use during visits to Pakistan or upon a permanent return, ensuring rent restriction laws are not rendered nugatory for overseas Pakistanis.
Questions settled- Can a landlord residing abroad claim personal bona fide need for premises in Pakistan during occasional visits?
- Whether temporary or occasional occupation of a house by an overseas landlord constitutes personal use under rent laws?
- Does permanent settlement in a foreign country disentitle a landlord from seeking eviction of tenants for own use?
- Mst. AFROZI JAN And Others vs Mst. ZOOJAN And Other1985 SCMR 587 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the validity of a land sale executed by an attorney on behalf of the original owner, Jaffar Khan. The petitioners challenged the sale, alleging the owner was insane and the transaction was fraudulent and without consideration. While the trial court dismissed the suit, the first appellate court decreed it, finding the sale fraudulent. The High Court, in second appeal, modified the decree, upholding the sale's validity and granting the petitioners only the alternative relief of the sale price. The core legal question was whether the High Court could interfere with the first appellate court's findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that where the trial court and the first appellate court reach conflicting findings on the same evidence, the High Court may compare them to determine which is supported by the record. The Court affirmed that an appellate finding lacking logical basis or evidentiary support is not immune from interference. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a sale by a duly authorized attorney is binding on the principal even if the agent fails to remit the consideration.
Questions settled- Can the High Court in second appeal interfere with a finding of fact made by the first appellate court?
- Does a conflict between the findings of the trial court and the first appellate court allow for interference in second appeal?
- Is a sale of land by an attorney binding on the principal if the attorney fails to remit the sale consideration to the principal?