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. SAEEDA AKHTAR AND Other vs LAL DIN AHD Other S1981 PLD Lahore 623 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a trial court decree granting specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The respondent, a creditor of the deceased vendor, had entered into a compromise agreement in previous money suits, which included an option for the vendor to transfer one square of land to the creditor. The appellants, daughters of the deceased vendor, contested the suit, arguing that the land was not identifiable, the suit was barred by Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that the respondent was estopped by electing to pursue execution of the money decree. The Court held that the suit was not barred by Order II, Rule 2, as the causes of action were distinct, nor was the respondent estopped, as the remedies were cumulative. However, the Court found that the respondent failed to prove the identity of the land agreed to be sold, as the suit land did not match the description in the agreement. Consequently, the Court held that the contract lacked the necessary certainty for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act 1877, and allowed the appeal, dismissing the suit.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for specific performance is barred by Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if a previous suit was filed for the same debt under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Does the existence of alternative remedies in a compromise agreement create an estoppel by election that prevents a party from pursuing specific performance?
- Can a contract be specifically enforced if the subject matter lacks reasonable certainty as to its identity?
- Is a compromise agreement that includes matters extraneous to the suit enforceable through a separate suit?
- Mst. RAZIA SULTANA vs ABDUL RAZZAQ1981 CLC 820 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. RASHIDA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1981 SCMR 744 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that upheld a Guardian Judge's decision granting custody of a minor son to his father. The petitioner (mother) argued that the lower courts were unduly influenced by a presumption under Muslim Law that a male child over seven years old should be in the father's custody, and that the father's failure to pay maintenance should have disqualified him. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts relied solely on legal presumptions or on the welfare of the minor. The Court held that while there is no absolute presumption in Muslim Law that overrides the welfare of the child, the lower courts had correctly evaluated the evidence, finding that the mother lacked the means to properly educate and care for the child, whereas the father had the means. The Court affirmed that a father's failure to pay maintenance does not automatically disentitle him to custody. The petition was dismissed, as the lower courts' findings were based on the child's welfare rather than mere legal presumptions.
Questions settled- Does a failure to pay maintenance automatically disentitle a father from obtaining custody of his minor child?
- Is the custody of a minor child to be determined based on a presumption under Muslim Law or on the welfare of the minor?
- Can a court grant custody of a minor to a father based on his superior financial means to provide education and care?
- Mst. RAISA BEGUM vs Mst. SHAKILA BEGUM1981 CLC 1351 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAIS JEHAN vs JAMSHED IRANI1981 CLC 1238 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAHEEL BEGUM AND 7 Other vs MUHAMMAD ZAHIR AND 2 Other1981 PLD Supreme Court 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside orders of the Settlement authorities transferring a disputed house to the appellants (heirs of a claimant displaced person) and directed reconsideration of a non-claimant respondent's application. The core legal question was whether a claimant displaced person, who withdrew their C.H. Form to participate in an earmarking scheme by submitting Form 'E', could seek the restoration of their C.H. Form upon failing to secure any property under that scheme. The Supreme Court held that while filing Form 'E' operates as a cancellation of the prior C.H. Form to prevent multiple allotments, it does not permanently debar a claimant from seeking the restoration of their C.H. Form or applying for available properties if they remain unsuccessful in the earmarking process through no fault of their own. The Court laid down that the choice to participate in an earmarking scheme is irrevocable regarding simultaneous claims, but does not forfeit a claimant's statutory right to compensation or prevent the revival of a withdrawn form when the earmarking fails and the property remains unallotted.
Questions settled- Whether the submission of Form 'E' to participate in an earmarking scheme permanently bars a claimant displaced person from seeking the restoration of a previously withdrawn C.H. Form upon failing to secure any property?
- Can a revisional authority under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 restore a C.H. Form that was previously cancelled due to participation in an alternative allocation scheme?
- Whether settlement authorities are legally bound to consider a pending application for the restoration of a C.H. Form before transferring the same property to a non-claimant applicant?
- Mst. RABIA vs YOUSAF1981 CLC 1361 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. PARVEEN BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD ALI1981 PLD Lahore 116 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. NOORI AND ANOTHER vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1981 CLC 797 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing an ejectment application filed under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The original applicant sought eviction of the respondent, who contested the title and claimed exclusive ownership and adverse possession of the property. The Rent Controller and the First Appellate Court both found in favor of the respondent, holding that the appellant failed to prove the tenancy or execution of rent receipts. Additionally, the First Appellate Court erroneously held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The High Court held that the first appeal was within time under the principles governing the exclusion of time for obtaining certified copies when notice is not given, but upheld the concurrent findings of fact on the merits, concluding that the appellant failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether the time taken in obtaining a certified copy can be excluded for limitation purposes when no notice of the copy being ready is given to the appellant?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship be interfered with in second appeal?
- Does a landlord seeking ejectment under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 bear the burden of proving tenancy when the alleged tenant denies the relationship and signatures on rent receipts?
- Mst. NOOR BIBI vs IMAM BAKHSH1981 CLC 1297 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAZIR vs Hafiz GHULAM MUSTAFA ETC.S1981 SCMR 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from proceedings under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, wherein the Guardian Judge directed the petitioner mother to restore custody of her minor daughter to the respondent father, which decision was affirmed on appeal by the High Court. The core legal questions involved whether a mother who remarries a man outside the prohibited degree to her minor daughter retains custody, and the effect of a previous agreement surrendering custody. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing to grant leave to appeal. The Court held that awarding custody to a mother who has remarried a person not within the prohibited degree to the ward effectively places the minor under the charge of a stranger, which is contrary to her welfare. Additionally, the Court noted that the mother's voluntary agreement executed at the time of divorce to surrender custody after five years served the minor's welfare in the circumstances. Finding sound reasons and no legal error in the concurrent orders below, the Court declined to interfere.
Questions settled- Whether a mother who remarries a person not within the prohibited degree to her minor daughter is entitled to retain custody of the minor?
- Whether a voluntary agreement entered into at the time of divorce surrendering minor custody can be given effect to determine the welfare of the minor?
- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against concurrent lower court findings on minor custody where no legal error is shown?
- Mst. NAUSHABA BEGUM vs DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER, NAWABSHAH AND 21981 CLC 1405 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. NASREEN MUHAMMAD NASEEM AND 4 Other vs MESSRS QUALITY STEEL1981 PLD Karachi 561 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASIM AKHTAR vs MEHBOOB1981 CLC 1734 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAILA vs The STATE1981 PLD Karachi 45 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUSSARAT TAHIRA vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB1981 CLC 501 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUMTAZ vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 386 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUMTAZ JEHAN BEGUM vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION1981 CLC 774 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. MEMOONA BEGUM AND 7 Others vs FDA HUSSAIN AND Another1981 SCMR 1226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over tenancy rights in a room in Karachi, following the death of the original tenant, Abdul Kadir Patel. The petitioners, heirs of the deceased, challenged ejectment proceedings initiated by the landlord (respondent No. 1) against another heir (respondent No. 2). Following multiple unsuccessful legal attempts to intervene through applications under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, including applications for impleadment and objections to execution, the petitioners filed a civil suit and subsequent revisions, all of which were dismissed by lower courts and the High Court. The Supreme Court addressed the core question of whether the petitioners could continue to challenge the ejectment order after having previously consented to vacate the premises in the High Court. The Court held that the petition lacked merit, ruling that the petitioners' prior consent to vacate constituted a waiver of their legal right to pursue the claim further. The principle laid down is that a party who has consented to vacate premises in judicial proceedings is foreclosed from subsequently challenging the merits of the ejectment order.
Questions settled- Does a party's consent to vacate premises in judicial proceedings constitute a waiver of their right to further challenge the ejectment order?
- Can heirs of a deceased tenant maintain a challenge to an ejectment order after previously consenting to vacate the premises?
- Mst. MEHRAJ BEGUM Alias Mst. MAJAN AND Another vs SETTLEMENT &1981 SCMR 717 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the rejection of the petitioners' claim for the transfer of a property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The petitioners, heirs of a deceased tenant, sought the transfer of a house in Lahore, but their application was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, a decision affirmed through subsequent appellate and revisional proceedings. The core legal questions were whether the initial rejection order was passed without jurisdiction due to a lack of hearing, whether representation by a family member in the proceedings was valid, and whether the petitioners were entitled to transfer despite significant rent arrears. The Supreme Court held that the findings of fact regarding the proceedings were unassailable and that the representation by the petitioners' son was sufficient. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the principle that a tenant in arrears of rent is not entitled to the transfer of the property under the relevant settlement laws, thereby dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Can a finding of fact recorded by settlement authorities be re-agitated in writ proceedings?
- Does the representation of a party by a family member in settlement proceedings constitute valid representation in the absence of a formal power of attorney?
- Is a tenant who is in arrears of rent entitled to the transfer of the property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Mst. MARYAM BIBI AND 13 Others vs Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM AND 4 Other1981 SCMR 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the inheritance of property rights following the death of a right-holder, Muhammad Akbar, who held a verified claim for agricultural land under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme but died before any specific land allotment was confirmed. The core legal question was whether the inheritance dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation and Settlement authorities or was cognizable by Civil and Revenue Courts. The Supreme Court held that because the deceased held only a verified claim and no confirmed allotment at the time of his death, the matter remained within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation authorities. The Court distinguished this from cases involving confirmed allottees, where the jurisdiction of Civil and Revenue Courts is not barred. The key principle laid down is that while succession to the estate of a confirmed allottee is beyond the purview of the Settlement Scheme and cognizable by Civil Courts, disputes regarding the inheritance of rights to allotment held by a deceased right-holder prior to confirmation remain within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation authorities.
Questions settled- Does the jurisdiction of Civil and Revenue Courts extend to inheritance disputes involving a deceased right-holder who had not yet received a confirmed allotment?
- Are disputes regarding the inheritance of rights to allotment held by a deceased right-holder under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation authorities?
- Does the bar under Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 apply to the succession of the estate of a confirmed allottee?
- Mst. MANZOOR ZOHRAN vs MANZOOR HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 907 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHUDEJA BEGUM vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 21981 CLC 1024 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. KHATOON BIBI AND 4 Others vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1981 P Cr. L J 759 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHATOON AND 3 OTHER vs SIDDIQ MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 409 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a judgment of the First Appellate Court (IV Additional District Judge, Hyderabad) which set aside the trial court's decree in a partition suit and remanded the case with directions to implead the descendants of a deceased co-owner as necessary parties. The appellants, who had themselves previously applied to implead these parties on the ground that they were necessary for a complete adjudication, argued that the appellate court lacked the power to order such joinder and remand the case, and that any objection to non-joinder had been waived. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, an appellate court possesses the power to implead necessary parties at any stage of the proceedings to ensure an effectual and complete adjudication. The Court emphasized that in partition suits, all co-sharers are necessary parties, and a court must ensure all interested persons are before it under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court exercise the power under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to implead a necessary party at the appellate stage?
- Whether all co-sharers and persons claiming an interest in the property are necessary parties in a suit for partition under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a party who previously applied to implead certain persons as necessary parties subsequently object to their joinder by the appellate court?
- MST. KHALIDA vs BABU AND 3 OTHERS1981 P Cr. L J 292 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mst. KAUSAR PARVEEN vs GHULAM RASOOL ..1981 PLD Lahore 511 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two consolidated writ petitions arising from a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner, Mst. Kausar Parveen, challenged a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, arguing that the decree should have been made conditional upon the payment of her deferred dower debt. The respondent, Ghulam Rasul, separately challenged the appellate court's findings regarding a receipt he produced to prove payment of that dower. The core legal question was whether a decree for restitution of conjugal rights can be conditioned upon the payment of deferred dower, and whether findings of fact regarding evidence appraisal are reviewable in writ jurisdiction. The Court held that because the dower was deferred, it is payable only upon the dissolution of marriage by death or divorce, not on demand; therefore, the decree for restitution could not be conditioned on its payment. Furthermore, the Court held that findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence by an appellate court cannot be disturbed under writ jurisdiction. Both petitions were dismissed, with the Court affirming the decree and declining to interfere with the factual findings.
Questions settled- Can a decree for restitution of conjugal rights be made conditional upon the payment of deferred dower?
- Is a finding of fact recorded by an appellate court based on the appraisal of evidence reviewable in writ jurisdiction?
- When is deferred dower payable to a wife in a marriage?
- Mst. KALSOOM vs JALIL AHMED KHAN AND Another1981 P Cr. L J 630 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-16Read full judgment →
- MST. JANAT vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MANG AND 2 OtherPL D 1981 Lahore 68 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. JANAT BIBI vs ABDUL KARIM1981 CLC 52 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. JAMILA LATIF vs GHULAM YAZDANI KHAN AND Other1981 SCMR 637 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenges a decision of the Lahore High Court affirming the lower appellate authority's findings regarding the bona fide personal requirement of the respondent landlady for eviction of the petitioner tenant. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court correctly evaluated the appreciation of evidence by the lower appellate forums and whether the landlady's subsequent death and other conduct extinguished the ground for eviction. The Supreme Court held that the lower appellate authority gave convincing reasons for upsetting the Rent Controller's findings, that the children's requirement survived the landlady's death during litigation, and that concurrent findings of fact based on unrebutted evidence were unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact by appellate forums based on proper re-examination of evidence and un-rebutted statements on oath will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court, and a ground for personal requirement concerning children does not abate upon the death of the original landlady.
Questions settled- Does the ground for personal requirement for eviction come to an end upon the death of the landlady during the pendency of litigation when children's requirement is also pleaded?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by appellate forums regarding the bona fide requirement of a landlord?
- Is failure to produce documentary evidence regarding health and schooling sufficient to discard un-rebutted oral statements on oath in rent proceedings?
- Mst. IZZAT vs ALLAH DITTA1981 PLD Supreme Court 165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through special leave arose from a Regular Second Appeal dismissing the appellant-wife's suit for a declaration that a registered sale deed executed in favour of her husband was void due to fraud and lack of consideration, alongside a prayer for permanent injunction restraining him from claiming ownership or possession. The core legal questions involved the applicability of Articles 91, 95, and 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 and whether a party alleging fraud in the execution of an instrument is bound to seek its cancellation. The Supreme Court held that where a person's signature or thumb impression to a document is obtained by misrepresenting its character (such as a power of attorney disguised as a sale deed), the transaction is non est and void ab initio, rendering Articles 91 and 95 inapplicable when cancellation is merely ancillary to the primary relief of protecting possession. The Court laid down that a plaintiff in lawful possession, threatened by a void instrument, is not obliged to sue for its cancellation within a restricted period, and limitation runs from the accrual of the threat to possession.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for declaration and permanent injunction where cancellation of a fraudulent deed is merely ancillary is governed by Article 91 or Article 95 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does limitation for filing a suit run from the date of the execution or knowledge of a fraudulent document when the plaintiff remains in continuous possession of the property?
- Whether an instrument executed through fraudulent misrepresentation as to its very nature is void ab initio or merely voidable under section 19 of the Contract Act 1872?
- Mst. INAYAT BIBI AND 2 OTHERS vs ISSAC NAZIRULLAH AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 229 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. HUSSAN ARA AND Another vs Mst. AMIR BEGUM AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Lahore 445 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. HUSSAIN BIBI ETC.s vs Mst. AISHA BIBI1981 CLC 962 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a suit filed by the respondent for possession of land, claiming to be the sole daughter of the deceased owner, Nizam Din, and challenging a gift deed executed by him in favor of the appellants (granddaughters through a pre-deceased son) on the grounds of undue influence, old age, and lack of a disposing mind. The trial court and the first appellate court both decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, finding the gift deed to have been procured via undue influence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Section 16 of the Contract Act 1872, heavy burden lies on the donee to prove absence of undue influence when dealing with an infirm and aged donor. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Article 91 of the Limitation Act 1908, limitation for an heir to challenge a voidable instrument executed by a predecessor commences from the date of the death of the donor, as no cause of action accrues during the donor's lifetime due to the rule against spes successionis.
Questions settled- Does a gift made by an aged and infirm donor to a family member standing in a fiduciary relationship raise a presumption of undue influence?
- When does limitation begin under Article 91 of the Limitation Act 1908 for an heir to challenge a gift deed executed by their father?
- Can a suit be maintained by an heir during the lifetime of their father to challenge a gift deed on the ground of undue influence?
- Whether the question of whether a document was procured by undue influence is a question of fact not subject to interference in second appeal?
- Mst. HASHMAT BIBI AND Others vs GULZAR MUHAMMAD AND Other1981 SC MR 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed against this Court's order dismissing a petition for leave to appeal, which had challenged a Lahore High Court judgment allowing a writ petition regarding the division of a small property measuring 125 square yards. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in setting aside the unanimous exercise of jurisdiction by the Settlement authorities and whether a review could be entertained on the basis of new documents not previously produced. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted within its constitutional jurisdiction to set aside orders without lawful authority as there was ample material showing the property was divisible, and further held that a review cannot be permitted on the basis of material that was available but not produced during the earlier proceedings. The key principle laid down is that the High Court may interfere in constitutional jurisdiction with Settlement authorities' orders if they suffer from a lack of lawful authority, and a review petition cannot serve as a vehicle to reargue a case or introduce new evidence.
Questions settled- Can the High Court set aside an order of the Settlement authorities in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether a review petition can be permitted on the basis of material that was available but not produced earlier?
- Is a review application maintainable when it is merely an attempt to reargue the original petition?
- Mst. HANIFA BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN AND 46 OTHERS1981 CLC 1156 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1981-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the appellant's suit for a declaration and possession regarding property sold during her minority. The core legal questions involve the validity of an alienation of a minor's immovable property by a de facto guardian under Muslim law and the determination of the applicable period of limitation for filing a suit for possession when such a transfer is challenged. The High Court held that under Muslim law, a de facto guardian is not competent to alienate a minor's immovable property, rendering any such transfer ab initio void and transferring no title. Consequently, a prayer to set aside the deed is superfluous, and the suit is governed by the general law providing twelve years for the recovery of possession where possession under a void deed is adverse, subject to the extension rules under the Limitation Act. The Court concluded that since the appellant attained majority in 1964 and failed to institute the suit within the remaining period of limitation or the statutory twelve years, expiring on 26-11-1969, her suit filed in 1973 was barred by limitation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a sale of a Muslim minor's immovable property by a de facto guardian valid?
- Does an alienation of a minor's property by an unauthorized person require a suit for setting aside the transfer deed?
- Which article or period of limitation applies to a suit for recovery of possession of property transferred by a de facto guardian?
- What is the combined effect of sections 6 and 8 of the Limitation Act regarding a plaintiff under legal disability upon attaining majority?
- Mst. HAMEEDAN BIBI vs MUHAMMAD YOUNUS1981 CLC 996 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. HALEEMA AND ANOTHER vs SATTAR MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 766 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1981-04-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. HABIBUNNISA Alias Mst. BIVI vs ZAFAR IQBAL AND Another1981 SCMR 95 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court which acquitted the respondent of murder and house trespass charges, reversing a conviction by the Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in discarding the testimony of two natural, disinterested eye-witnesses—the deceased's widow and a neighbor—on the basis of minor discrepancies, lack of proven motive, and procedural conduct following the incident. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's rejection of this evidence was based on hypothetical reasoning and flimsy grounds. The Court reaffirmed that the testimony of natural, disinterested witnesses, who have no animosity toward the accused, should not be lightly brushed aside, especially when corroborated by medical evidence and a promptly lodged F.I.R. The Court emphasized that minor contradictions in statements, particularly when witnesses are under severe emotional distress or shock, do not necessarily undermine their credibility. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal, restored the original conviction under Section 302 and Section 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and upheld the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of natural and disinterested eye-witnesses be discarded solely on the basis of minor contradictions in their statements?
- Does the failure to prove a specific motive for a crime necessarily invalidate the testimony of eye-witnesses?
- Should the evidence of a witness be rejected because they did not immediately disclose the identity of the culprit to every person they encountered in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event?
- Mst. GHULAM FATIMA vs ABDUL QAYYUM AND Other1981 PLD Supreme Court 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case addresses whether a dissolution of marriage between the appellant and the deceased husband constituted an irrevocable divorce by mutual consent (Mubara't) or Khula, thus excluding the application of section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 regarding revocation and notice. The appellant sued for dissolution, later alleging she was divorced via a written Talaqnama following a Jirga, which the husband initially denied or attempted to revoke. Upon the husband's death, his heirs sought a declaration that the appellant was not his legal wife and thus not entitled to inherit. The trial court and District Judge ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the Talaq was revoked for lack of notice under section 7. However, the High Court reversed this, finding the transaction amounted to Mubara't, rendering revocation inapplicable. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the evidence demonstrated a unilateral pronouncement of Talaq under pressure rather than a voluntary dissolution by mutual consent or Khula. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in classifying it as Mubara't, thereby setting aside the judgment and restoring the lower appellate court's decision.
Questions settled- Whether a divorce pronounced under pressure and without mutual consent constitutes a divorce by mutual consent or Mubara't?
- Does section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 apply to a unilateral pronouncement of Talaq?
- Can a divorce be treated as Khula or Mubara't in the absence of evidence showing mutual consent or waiver of dower?
- Mst. GHULAM FATIMA AND OTHERS vs Sufi AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERS1981 CLC 76 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. GHULAM FATIMA AND Another vs KHUSHI Muhammads1981 SCMR 1066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two civil miscellaneous petitions arising from orders passed by District Judges in revisional jurisdictions. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan is whether a civil miscellaneous petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against an order passed by a District Court while exercising revisional powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the petitions are incompetent and dismissed them. The ratio decidendi is that when a District Court exercises revisional powers conferred upon it under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it does not acquire the status of a High Court; rather, it remains a subordinate civil court. The key principle laid down is that the mere conferment of concurrent revisional powers by the legislature upon the District Court does not alter its statutory identity to equate it with a High Court created under the Constitution.
Questions settled- Whether a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan lies against an order passed by a District Court in exercise of revisional powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Does the conferment of revisional powers on a District Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure elevate its status to that of a High Court?
- What is the distinction between the jurisdiction exercised by a High Court under the Constitution and the powers exercised by a District Court under the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Mst. GHULAM FATIMA AND 5 OTHERS vs Mst. ANWAR alias ANWARI BEGUM1981 CLC 1651 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. FATMA AND 4 OTHERS vs THE BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND AND 5 OTHERS1981 CLC 133 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. FATIMA vs ADDITIONAL CHEIF LAND COMMISSIONER, SIND AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 942 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. FATIMA BIBI AND Others vs SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES THROUGH CHIEF1981 SCMR 740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a dispute regarding the transfer of a composite evacuee property consisting of shops and residential portions in Chichawatni. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner originally transferred the property to claimant displaced persons, who subsequently entered into an agreement of association with the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners regarding one shop. Through subsequent revision proceedings and supplementary orders before settlement authorities, the transfer in favour of the petitioners was adversely affected and ultimately upheld as invalid by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The petitioners challenged this order via a writ petition in the Lahore High Court after an inordinate delay of several years, which was dismissed on grounds of res judicata and laches. The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard the matter and agreed with the High Court that the constitutional petition was liable to be dismissed due to gross laches and unexplained delay in challenging the administrative order. The court laid down the principle that unexplained inordinate delay in challenging adverse administrative orders through a writ petition warrants dismissal on the ground of laches.
Questions settled- Is a writ petition challenging an administrative order of the settlement authorities liable to dismissal on the ground of inordinate delay and laches?
- Can an associate of a transferee challenge an adverse settlement order after a delay of several years without a tenable explanation?
- Mst. FATIMA BAI AND 7 OTHERS vs REHMATULLAH AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 1235 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. FATIMA AND ANOTHER vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER_COLLECTOR, SHUJABAD SUE DIVISION AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1755 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. FAIZAN vs PAKISTAN THROUGH DIRECTORGENERAL, PAKISTAN TELEGRAPH1981 CLC 1524 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. BHAGHAN AND 2 Other vs Sh. MUHAMMAD LATIF AND 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 146 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated October 3, 1968, regarding land situated within the Cantonment area in Sialkot, executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, and the lower appellate court dismissed the subsequent appeal. The appellants raised contentions regarding non-joinder of necessary parties, lack of prior government sanction rendering the agreement void under section 23 of the Contract Act 1872, absence of clear title under section 25(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1877, and undue influence due to mental infirmity. The Lahore High Court held that the agreement was not void for lack of prior permission since such transfer permissions or regularizations could be obtained post-sale under administrative rules, that old grant rights constituted substantial transferable rights, and that the allegations of mental incapacity and undue influence were not substantiated by evidence. Consequently, the concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an agreement for the sale of land situated within a cantonment area is void under section 23 of the Contract Act 1872 for want of prior government sanction?
- Does an old grant right in cantonment property constitute a valid title capable of being enforced through specific performance?
- Whether a contract can be specifically enforced when administrative permission for transfer can be obtained subsequent to the sale?
- What constitutes undue influence based on mental infirmity or old age under section 16 of the Contract Act 1872?
- Mst. BASHIRAN AND 4 Others vs PAKISTAN THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, P.1981 SCMR 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a review petition filed against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 17-9-1976, which dismissed an appeal arising from the dismissal of a civil suit for compensation regarding the fatal accident of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, an employee of the railway who fell from a ladder while descending from a roof. The core legal question was whether the railway authorities were negligent under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, for failing to provide safety measures such as a lifeline while descending a ladder. The Supreme Court held that the slipping of the deceased's foot was not associated with any defect in the ladder or negligence of the employer, and that safety belts or lifelines are not designed or required for climbing down a ladder where hands remain free to secure oneself. The review petition was accordingly dismissed, as no error or sufficient ground for review was established.
Questions settled- Whether the scope of review in the Supreme Court extends to re-evaluating factual findings without a demonstrated error?
- Does the failure to provide a safety belt while climbing down a ladder constitute actionable negligence under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
- Can an employer be held liable for an accident caused by an employee's accidental slipping where no defect in equipment or lack of ordinary precaution is proved?
- Mst. BARKATUNNISA AND 6 OTHERS vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 1467 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. BARKATEY AND Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND Other1981 SC M R259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of an order passed by the High Court dismissing a constitutional petition filed by the petitioners regarding the entitlement to land allotted to three ladies in lieu of property left in India. The revenue authorities had sanctioned mutations treating the title of the ladies as a life estate and determined inheritance accordingly. The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities rather than rehabilitation authorities, argued errors in their determined shares under Islamic law and paragraph 46 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Scheme, and contended they were full owners rather than life estate holders. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the dispute is of a factual nature requiring evidence and proper adjudication by a civil court, reiterating that a mutation by itself does not settle the entitlement of parties. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the view that writ jurisdiction was not justified when an adequate remedy of a civil suit exists.
Questions settled- Whether a mutation by itself is intended to settle the entitlement of parties?
- Can revenue authorities determine inheritance rights involving disputed factual questions through mutations?
- Is a constitutional petition an appropriate remedy when an adequate remedy of filing a civil suit is available for resolving disputed land entitlements?
- Mst. BAKHT BANG vs Mst. JAMILA Alias AFSAR JAN AND Onws1981 PLD Supreme Court 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside an appellate order that had vacated ex parte preliminary and final decrees in a partition and accounts suit. The core legal questions concerned whether an application to set aside an ex parte decree is barred by Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 when the summons was not accompanied by a copy of the plaint under Order V Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether non-compliance with said rule renders the service of summons ineffective. The Supreme Court held that the requirement of Order V Rule 2 is directory rather than mandatory, and its non-compliance constitutes a procedural irregularity rather than an illegality that vitiates service, meaning a defendant served with a summons but lacking a copy of the plaint must seek an adjournment rather than claim invalid service. The Court laid down that due service refers to the summons under Order V rules 9 to 30, and where a defendant is duly served, time under Article 164 of the Limitation Act runs from the date of the decree.
Questions settled- Whether an application to set aside an ex parte decree is hit by the bar of Article 164 of the Limitation Act when the summons was not accompanied by a copy of the plaint in accordance with Order V Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Does the failure to supply a copy of the plaint along with the summons render the service of summons ineffective or illegal?
- Is the provision of Order V Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure requiring a summons to be accompanied by a copy of the plaint mandatory or directory?
- Whether incarceration in jail on a capital charge constitutes sufficient cause to extend the limitation period under Article 164 of the Limitation Act for setting aside an ex parte decree when the party was duly served?
- Mst. AZIZ BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD KHUSHDIL AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Karachi 141 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenged an order by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, which consolidated two separate criminal proceedings—one initiated by a police report and the other by a private complaint—against the same accused for the same offence of murder. The petitioner argued that the private complaint should take precedence and the police case should be stayed, relying on the precedent in Noor Illahi v. The State. The Court examined whether consolidation was legally permissible when the accused and the version of events were identical in both cases. The Court held that consolidation is appropriate when there are no conflicting versions, different sets of accused, or distinct evidence, as separate trials in such circumstances would lead to a waste of public time and potential conflicting decisions. The Court clarified that the procedure in Noor Illahi is not an invariable rule but a mechanism to prevent prejudice where versions conflict. Consequently, the Court upheld the consolidation order, affirming that trial courts have the discretion to amalgamate cases to ensure procedural efficiency when the factual matrix is substantially the same.
Questions settled- Is a trial court required to stay a police-initiated case when a private complaint regarding the same offence is pending?
- Does the precedent in Noor Illahi v. The State mandate separate trials for all cases involving both a police report and a private complaint?
- Under what circumstances may a trial court consolidate a private complaint and a police report case?
- Is consolidation of criminal cases permissible when the accused and the version of the incident are identical in both proceedings?
- Mst. SAEED FATIMA vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 1257 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mst. AYESHA BAI AND Another vs Mst. SHAHIDA AND 4 Other1981 PLD Karachi 177 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This administration suit was instituted by the widow and minor son of a deceased person against the deceased's daughter and other relatives, seeking the administration of the estate and rendition of accounts. The core legal question was whether a suit for administration and accounts is maintainable when the defendants dispute that the deceased left any property at the time of his death and claim that the properties in question belong either to themselves or to third parties. The Sindh High Court held that the preliminary issue must be answered in the affirmative, ruling that in an administration suit, the court has the inherent jurisdiction and duty to ascertain what properties belonged to the deceased at the time of death, including determining questions of ownership and deciding the validity of adverse claims or alienations as an ancillary measure. The court laid down the principle that the maintainability of an administration suit depends on the specific pleadings in each case, and where a sufficient nexus is established between the deceased and the assets, the court can investigate disputed titles to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an administration suit is maintainable when defendants claim that the deceased left no property at the time of his death?
- Does a court have the jurisdiction to determine disputed questions of ownership and title to property in an administration suit?
- Can the question of ownership regarding assets claimed by a third party intervenor be decided within the scope of an administration suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings?
- Mst. ASMAT AND 4 Others vs MUAMMAD NAWAZ MALI AND 12 OTHERS1981 P Cr. L J 854 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mst. ASMA ZAFARUL HASSAN vs MESSRS UNITED BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER1981 SCMR 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind, which dismissed the petitioner's application to set aside a sale of mortgaged property executed pursuant to a final foreclosure decree. The core legal questions involved whether an application to set aside a judicial sale was barred by limitation under Article 166 of the Limitation Act, and whether a court could accept a private offer for the sale of property in execution proceedings when public auction had become impracticable, despite the provisions of Order XXI, rule 65 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the application was indeed time-barred, as time ran from the date the private offer was accepted, and that the issuance of a sale certificate was merely an administrative act. Furthermore, the Court held that in the absence of explicit statutory prohibition, a court may exercise its inherent powers to adopt an alternative mode of sale, such as a private offer, to serve the ends of justice when public auction fails, provided due notice is given and no substantial injury or prejudice is proven by the judgment debtor. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does limitation for filing an application to set aside a judicial sale run from the date the sale offer is accepted or from the date of the issuance of the sale certificate?
- Can a court accept a private offer for the sale of property in execution proceedings when a public auction has proved impracticable?
- Are irregularities in the publication of a proclamation of sale considered illegalities that render the sale a nullity without proof of substantial injury?
- Mst. ANWAR BEGUM AND 9 Others MUHAMMAD FAZAL AND Another vs CHIEF1981 SCMR 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMINA BIBI vs PEHLWAN SHAH AND Other1981 SCMR 613 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by Mst. Amina Bibi against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondents of the charge of murder. The primary legal question before the Court was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence by discarding the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses and setting aside the conviction passed by the trial court. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal, finding that the sole eye-witness examined was an inimical witness related to the deceased whose testimony contained material inconsistencies with his previous statements and medical evidence. The Court reiterated the established legal principle that the testimony of an interested or inimical witness requires independent corroboration and that one piece of tainted evidence cannot be corroborated by another piece of tainted evidence. Finding the High Court's view reasonable and based on cogent reasons, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the appreciation of evidence and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can one piece of tainted evidence be used to corroborate another piece of tainted evidence?
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with a High Court's order of acquittal where the High Court's appreciation of evidence is based on cogent and reasonable grounds?
- Whether the testimony of an inimical and interested witness can form the sole basis of conviction without independent corroboration?
- Mst. AMINA BEGUM vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND Other1981 SCMR 228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a civil petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that maintained the cancellation of an agreement of association regarding disputed property. The petitioner, Mst. Amina Begum, challenged the cancellation, arguing that the respondent, Mst. Fatima, had acquiesced for nine years before seeking permission to pay the property price, which implied the validity of the agreement. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in upholding the factual findings of the Settlement Authorities regarding the validity of the agreement and whether the agreement was legally binding despite procedural irregularities. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition in limine. The Court held that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the Settlement Authorities, which had thrice determined the agreement to be a forged document. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that the failure to record the statements of the parties at the time of presenting an agreement of association constitutes a fatal procedural defect, rendering the agreement non-existent in the eye of the law.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by Settlement Authorities regarding the validity of an agreement?
- Is an agreement of association legally valid if the statements of the parties were not recorded at the time of its presentation?
- Does a long delay in challenging an agreement of association automatically validate the agreement despite findings of forgery?
- Mst. AMINA BEGUM AND Other vs Mehar GHULAM DASTGIR1981 PLD Lahore 694 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMINA BAI /Petitioner vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1981 P Cr. L J 813 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMEER BIBI AND Others vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, PUNJAB, LAHORE ARTS Other1981 SCMR 1209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged a Division Bench judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed in limine a writ petition directed against an order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The Custodian had upheld the Deputy Custodian's order determining that only a 7/70 share of the disputed land was non-evacuee property, while the remainder was evacuee property, following an earlier 1949 declaration under Section 8 of the West Punjab Protection of Evacuee Property Act 1948. The petitioners contended that the land was never treated as evacuee property prior to January 1, 1957, and argued for protection as bona fide purchasers. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, holding that the 1949 declaration explicitly found only 7/70 share to be non-evacuee, thereby by implication treating the remaining property as evacuee. The Court held that the declaration had achieved finality against the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest and could not be reopened. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether a declaration limiting a non-evacuee share in a property implicitly treats the remainder of the property as evacuee property?
- Can a declaration rendered by a Deputy Custodian regarding evacuee status that has attained finality be challenged by the successors-in-interest of the applicant?
- Whether new pleas regarding the jurisdiction of Custodian authorities can be raised for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Mst. AKHTAR BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 146 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-05-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. AKHTAR BASHIR vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 423 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a dispute regarding a shop, involving multiple suits filed by the parties which were consolidated and referred to an arbitrator by a joint statement signed in court. The arbitrator rendered an award, and objections filed by the petitioner and respondent were rejected by the trial court, a decision subsequently affirmed in appeal by the District Judge. The core legal questions centered on whether a reference to arbitration in a pending suit could be made without a formal written application under section 21 of the Arbitration Act, whether the entire subject-matter could be referred without specific formulation of differences, and whether the courts were justified in rejecting objections to the award. The Lahore High Court held that where parties consent to arbitration, sign the proceedings, and participate, they are estopped from questioning the validity of the award on the ground of the absence of a written application under section 21. Furthermore, the reference was not vague as the parties were aware of the issues, and an arbitrator is the judge of law and fact, not strictly bound by technical rules of procedure. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the order of reference in a pending suit could be made without any application as provided under section 21 of the Arbitration Act?
- Whether the entire subject matter of the suit could be referred to arbitration without formulating the matter of difference between the parties?
- Whether parties who participate in arbitration proceedings are estopped from challenging the award on the ground that the reference lacked a written application?
- Mst. AKBAR BIBI vs SHAUKAT ALI1981 CLC 78 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. AISHA BIBI vs NAZIR AND 2 Other1981 SCMR 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which declined to issue a writ of habeas corpus regarding the custody of a young girl, Mst. Zahida Perveen. The petitioner, the maternal grandmother of the girl, alleged that the girl was being detained by her paternal uncle. The High Court had previously dismissed a similar petition, relying on the girl's statement that she wished to reside with her paternal uncle, and subsequently dismissed a second petition, directing the petitioner to approach the Guardian Court for legal guardianship. The core legal question was whether habeas corpus proceedings are an appropriate remedy for resolving a custody dispute between relatives when there is no evidence of illegal or forcible detention. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly refused to interfere, affirming that the dispute was essentially a matter of custody to be resolved by the Guardian Court, rather than through extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that habeas corpus is not the proper forum for determining custody disputes where no forcible detention is established.
Questions settled- Is a writ of habeas corpus an appropriate remedy for resolving a custody dispute between relatives?
- Can a court direct a party to seek relief from a Guardian Court instead of issuing a writ of habeas corpus in a custody matter?
- Does the absence of forcible detention preclude the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus?
- Mst. AISHA BAI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1981 P Cr. L J 338 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. ABBASI BEGUM vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA1981S C M R 752 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's second appeal by the Lahore High Court, upholding the eviction order passed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The respondent landlady filed an eviction application on the ground of default in rent, which was allowed by the Rent Controller and affirmed in successive appeals. The petitioner contended that the fresh eviction proceedings were barred under section 14 of the Ordinance due to protracted prior litigation. The core legal questions pertained to whether the fresh eviction application was barred by section 14 and whether it was founded on a fresh cause of action. The Supreme Court held that the application was based on a continuing default and a fresh cause of action arising after the settlement of demarcation disputes, and thus was not hit by section 14. Furthermore, the Court noted that the plea regarding the bar had not been raised in the written statement or urged before the High Court. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a fresh application for eviction on the ground of default in rent is barred under section 14 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does a continuing default in the payment of rent furnish a fresh cause of action for eviction notwithstanding previous proceedings?
- Can a plea not raised in the written statement before the Rent Controller or urged in the High Court be permitted to be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- MRS. Z. A. QADIR vs UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Karachi 715 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-14Read full judgment →
- MRS. YASMEEN LARI vs Mums LAHORE INVESTMENT LTD. AND 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 90 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-06Read full judgment →
- MRS. SHARIFUNNISA AND Others vs MRS. PIROJA AND Other1981 SCMR 1234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, which allowed a second appeal and set aside concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge dismissing an ejectment application. The core legal question involved whether the deceased sub-tenant had unlawfully sublet or assigned the shop premises without the consent of the tenant, thereby rendering himself liable to eviction under the relevant rent restriction law. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the evidence conclusively established unauthorized subletting, noting that the lower courts had ignored material documents and made findings contrary to the record. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the High Court was legally justified in reversing the perverse findings of the courts below upon a proper re-appraisal of the evidentiary record.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in second appeal can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts when such findings ignore material documents?
- Does the assignment or subletting of a rented premises without the landlord's consent constitute a ground for eviction?
- Can a person claiming to be a direct tenant of the superior landlord be held to be a sub-tenant of the original tenant upon evidence?
- MRS. SHAHNAZ ADIL KHORY vs ADIL DINSHAW KHORY1981 CLC 531 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-04Read full judgment →
- MRS. SAMINA SHAUKAT AYUB KHAN vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI1981 PLD Supreme Court 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of Civil Appeals arising from income-tax assessments for the years 1962-63 and 1966-67. The appellant, who filed wealth tax returns showing substantial cash in hand, claimed the funds were received as marriage gifts (salamis) and birth presents. The Income-tax Officer accepted only a portion of these claims as gifts and assessed the remaining unexplained amounts as income from undisclosed sources. The Appellate Tribunal and the Peshawar High Court upheld the assessments. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether unexplained cash in the hands of an assessee with no known source of income can be treated as assessable income, and whether such amounts qualify for exemption as casual and non-recurring receipts under Section 4(3)(vii) of the Income-tax Act 1922. The Court held that if an assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source and nature of cash receipts, the Income-tax Officer may legitimately presume the amount is income from an undisclosed source. Furthermore, the burden of proving an exemption lies on the assessee, which cannot be discharged without disclosing the source of the income.
Questions settled- Can unexplained cash receipts in the hands of an assessee be treated as income from an undisclosed source if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain their origin?
- Does the burden of proving that an income qualifies for exemption under Section 4(3)(vii) of the Income-tax Act 1922 lie upon the assessee?
- Can an assessee claim an exemption for casual and non-recurring receipts under Section 4(3)(vii) of the Income-tax Act 1922 without disclosing or explaining the source of the income?
- MRS. S. T. NAQVI vs Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM1981 CLC 933 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
- MRs. PARVEEN HILALUDDIN vs OMAR JAN AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1495 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-03Read full judgment →
- MRS. MARIAM FERNANDES vs STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI1981 PLD Karachi 591 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case involves four second appeals addressing whether the notice requirement under section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is mandatory. The appellants were tenants whose premises were purchased by a company, which later nationalized and became the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan. Ejectment applications were filed against the tenants on the ground of default in rent, without serving the statutory notice of transfer by registered post. The lower courts ruled against the tenants, holding that notice was unnecessary due to nationalization and that payment of rent for some time constituted a waiver. The Sindh High Court held that the requirement of notice under section 13-A is mandatory and designed to protect tenants from default when ownership changes. The Court clarified that while non-compliance does not render a rent application non-maintainable if other grounds for eviction exist, it prevents a finding of default based solely on non-payment until notice is properly served. Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and allowed the appeals.
Questions settled- Is the requirement of notice provided in section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 mandatory?
- Does non-compliance with the notice provision under section 13-A render a rent application for ejectment entirely non-maintainable?
- Can a tenant be deemed to have defaulted in the payment of rent if the transferee landlord fails to give notice of transfer by registered post?
- Does the principle of estoppel apply to waive the requirement of a statutory notice under section 13-A when a tenant pays rent for some time after a transfer?
- MRS. JEHAN ARA TABASSUM vs WAPDA, .1981 PLC 257 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1980-09-27Read full judgment →
- MRS. JAMILA B. NAIMAT vs Mian ABDUL WAHEED1981 PLD Karachi 138 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves office references in two unregistered suits on the original side of the High Court, wherein the common question for decision is whether the plaintiffs are required to pay court-fees on their respective plaints. The plaintiffs contended that, pursuant to a previous Division Bench judgment of the court, no court-fee is leviable on the original side under the Court Fees Act, 1870, and that such view remains binding under Article 201 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, notwithstanding a stay order granted by the Supreme Court in pending appeals. The court held that while a Division Bench decision is entitled to high respect, it is not binding on another Division Bench under Article 201, which applies only to subordinate courts. Considering the practical difficulties in recovering revenue if the Supreme Court reverses the precedent, and to avoid anomalous situations where non-parties benefit uniquely from a stayed judgment, the court adopted the consistent practice initiated by Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, J. The court ordered a conditional arrangement requiring the plaintiffs to deposit or pay court-fees subject to a binding undertaking by the Provincial Government to refund the same if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the abolition of court-fees on the original side.
Questions settled- Whether court-fees are leviable on plaints filed on the original side of the High Court?
- Does a Division Bench judgment of a High Court have a binding effect on another Division Bench of the same High Court under Article 201 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- How should the High Court deal with the question of court-fees when the precedent holding them non-leviable is pending adjudication and stayed before the Supreme Court?
- MRS. HASEENA R HATOON vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 785 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-27Read full judgment →
- MRS. FARHAT JABEEN vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE AND 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 588 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-26Read full judgment →
- MRS. ANWAR FATIMA AND 2 Others vs Miss AZIZ BEGUM AND 7 Other1981 SCMR 119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three leave petitions arising from a Service Tribunal judgment regarding seniority disputes among teachers. The petitioners challenged the Tribunal's decision, which granted seniority to the respondent, Miss Aziz Begum, based on a government notification. The petitioners argued that the Civil Servants Act, 1973, should govern their seniority and that the respondent's appeal to the Tribunal was incompetent. The Supreme Court held that the Civil Servants Act, 1973, did not apply to seniority disputes already concluded by prior undertakings given by the petitioners upon their transfer. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an appeal against a provisional seniority list is competent. However, regarding the petition of Mrs. Asiya Mahmood, the Court found that she was "condemned unheard" because the Tribunal sent notice to an incorrect address, resulting in an ex parte order. The Court established that any order passed without affording a party an opportunity of hearing is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. Consequently, the Court dismissed the other petitions but allowed Mrs. Asiya Mahmood’s petition, remanding her case to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits.
Questions settled- Does the Civil Servants Act 1973 apply to seniority disputes that were already concluded by an undertaking prior to the Act's commencement?
- Is an appeal filed before a Service Tribunal against a provisional seniority list competent?
- Does an order passed by a tribunal without providing a party an opportunity of hearing constitute a violation of natural justice?
- MRS. ABIDA AFZAL BHATTI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1981 PLC (C. S.) 601 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-08-18Read full judgment →
- MRS. ABDUL MALIK vs Mst. ASGHARI BEGUM1981 PLD Karachi 88 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-11Read full judgment →
- MR. B. Z. KAIKAUS vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1981 PLD F SC 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1980-12-12Read full judgment →
- MOULOO Erc.S - vs Tim STATE1981 PLD Karachi 745 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- MOOR MUHAMMAD vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION , .1981 PLC 720 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
- Molvi NIAZ AHMAD vs Molvi NOORULLAH AND OTHERS1981 CLC 843 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-30Read full judgment →
- MOHIUDDIN vs MESSRS KAR WAN TEXTILE MILLS, .1981 PLC 764 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-09-07Read full judgment →
- MOHIB ALI (MAHBOOB ALI) vs AMANULLAH KHAN AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 251 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal concerns a dispute over agricultural land where the plaintiffs sought possession, claiming ownership, while the defendant asserted title through adverse possession. The core legal question was whether the suit was time-barred under Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1908, concerning dispossession, or if the residuary Article 144 applied, and whether the defendant had matured title through continuous adverse possession. The Court held that the suit was within time. It established the principle that for land not capable of physical possession or lying vacant, possession follows title; thus, the rightful owner is presumed to be in constructive possession. Because the evidence showed the land was vacant during certain periods, the defendant failed to establish the requisite continuous twelve-year adverse possession. Consequently, the Court upheld the lower courts' decrees in favor of the plaintiffs, dismissing the appeal. The judgment clarifies that when land is unoccupied, the legal possession resides with the rightful owner, preventing the maturation of adverse possession claims based on intermittent occupancy.
Questions settled- Does possession follow title in cases involving vacant or unculturable land?
- Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 applies when a plaintiff claims possession of land that was previously vacant?
- Can a defendant claim adverse possession if there are gaps in their occupation of the disputed property?
- Does the failure to argue a specific issue of law in the first appellate court bar the appellant from raising it in a second appeal?
- MOHAMMADI REROLLING MILLS LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHERs vs Mst. AHMEDI1981 CLC 1160 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MOHAMMADI REROLLING MILLS AND MOHAMMADI UTENSIL PRODUCTS vs SHAMASUDDIN ALI1981 CLC 430 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD SHABBIR vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND 3 OTHERS , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 566 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-06Read full judgment →
- MO. SALAMI vs MIR HASSAN AND 2 Other1981 PLD Karachi 11 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was filed by a mother seeking the custody of her minor daughter, aged 7-8 years, allegedly kidnapped by the respondents. The respondents claimed the minor was married to one of them. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is ousted by the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts regarding custody, and whether the minor's detention was illegal or improper. The Court held that while Family Courts possess jurisdiction over guardianship matters, the High Court retains authority under Section 491 to determine if a minor's detention is improper. The Court ruled that the mother holds the preferential right of hizanat (custody) under Shariat law for a minor of tender age who has not attained puberty. Consequently, the detention was declared improper, and the minor’s expressed preference for the respondents was disregarded as potentially influenced. The Court ordered the minor’s custody be restored to the mother, leaving the respondents to pursue civil remedies for conjugal rights if legally permissible.
Questions settled- Does the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts over custody matters oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a mother claim the right of hizanat for a minor of tender age in a habeas corpus petition despite claims of a valid marriage by the respondents?
- Should the expressed preference of a minor of tender age be considered when determining custody if the minor's mind has been influenced against the mother?
- Is the detention of a minor girl by alleged in-laws considered improper under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, even if a marriage is alleged?
- Mm Is RAUF & COMPANY LTD. vs ALPHA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KARACHI1981 PLD Karachi 457 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-12Read full judgment →
- Miss TAUSEEF GILANI vs DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 1314 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-17Read full judgment →
- Miss SHAMASA SIDDIQUI vs COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD DIVISION AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1264 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →