Haji MUHAMMAD YUNIS (DECEASED) vs Mst — 2022 SCMR 1282 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Haji MUHAMMAD YUNIS (DECEASED) VS Mst. FARUKH SULTAN O. XXIII, R. 1(3)---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54---Withdrawal of suit challenging a sale mutation---Bar to instituting fresh suit to challenge the same sale mutation---Scope---Where a person withdraws his suit challenging a sale mutation, he would lose his cause of action to re-agitate the same matter in a suit filed by another, either as a co-plaintiff or a proforma defendant supporting the plaintiff on the same matter---However such person can defend his stance on such matter as a defendant. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1282 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Haji MUHAMMAD YUNIS (DECEASED) VS Mst. FARUKH SULTAN First Sched. art. 120---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 42---adverse entry in revenue record (Jamabandi)---Right to sue---Fresh cause of action---'actual denial of right' and an "apprehended or threatened denial of right"---Limitation period, commencement of---Principles for ascertaining when the right to sue accrues to a donor or owner of property, to seek a declaration of his ownership right over the property stated. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1282 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Haji MUHAMMAD YUNIS (DECEASED) VS Mst. FARUKH SULTAN art. 25---Plight of overseas Pakistanis in perusing their legal rights in courts in Pakistan---Special provisions for the protection of lawful rights of overseas Pakistanis---Observations recorded by the Supreme Court detailed. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1282 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Haji MUHAMMAD YUNIS (DECEASED) VS Mst. FARUKH SULTAN S. 39---Possession follows the title---Unless contrary is proved by cogent evidence, an owner is presumed to be in possession of his property. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1282 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Haji MUHAMMAD YUNIS (DECEASED) VS Mst. FARUKH SULTAN S. 54---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(e)---Sale transaction---Onus to prove on beneficiary---When a sale transaction of an immovable property is challenged, the ultimate onus to prove the same is on the "beneficiary" thereof---However, this onus is shifted on the "beneficiary", only when the challenger puts forth some evidence to discharge the initial burden to rebut the legal presumption of truth in favour of the disputed long-standing revenue entries or registered sale deed, as the case may be. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1282 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Haji MUHAMMAD YUNIS (DECEASED) VS Mst. FARUKH SULTAN S. 3---Fresh period of limitation---Scope---When the right to sue of a person from or through whom the plaintiff derives his right to sue has become time barred, no fresh period of limitation can start for such plaintiff. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1282 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Haji MUHAMMAD YUNIS (DECEASED) VS Mst. FARUKH SULTAN S. 42---Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005), Ss. 3 & 8---Suit for declaration---Property bought by overseas Pakistanis ('the vendees')---Legal heirs of vendor challenged the sale mutation in favour of vendees as being the result of fraud and forgery---Suit for declaration filed by one of the legal heirs was decreed by the High Court---High Court also dismissed the complaint filed by the vendees against one of the legal heirs under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Held, that during the proceedings of the suit, the male legal heir (one of the plaintiffs) introduced a fictitious attorney of one of the vendees and her purported son, and showed the other vendee to have died; secondly, he got filed the written statement on behalf of the vendees through the said fictitious attorney favouring his stance in the suit; and finally, got half of the suit property alienated through the said fictitious attorney to him---Such crucial facts were recorded by the Trial Court in its orders--Furthermore, the stance of the male legal heir before the trial court, during the proceedings of the suit, also kept wavering---At the initial stage of the proceedings of the suit, he took the plea in his written statement that the suit property had fallen to his share in the family settlement and he was the exclusive owner thereof---Later, he was shown to have purchased half of the suit property vide a sale mutation, and finally, he abandoned all his earlier claims after registration of a criminal case against the fictitious attorney, and joined hands with his sister (one of the plaintiffs), supporting her claim that the suit property had devolved on all children and they all were entitled to their respective share therein as per the Islamic law---Trial Court found that sale mutation in favour of vendees was sanctioned by the Revenue Officer in presence and on the identification of the vendor's husband, therefore, the plea of fraud with the vendor was immaterial---Trial court had also underlined that the vendor died after about 19/20 years of the sanction of the sale mutation but she did not challenge it during her lifetime, and therefore her legal heirs had no right to challenge it independent of their predecessor---Appellate Court cited that part of the statement of the male legal heir in its judgment, wherein he had admitted that the signature of his father on the disputed sale mutation, as identifier of the seller, his mother, matched with his signature on his CNIC and that his mother (vendor) used to make her signature in English, as it was on the disputed sale mutation---High Court did not have, in its revisional jurisdiction, the legal mandate to reverse the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, without first addressing the said reasoning of the trial and appellate courts---Appeals were allowed, impugned judgment of High Court was set-aside, and concurrent judgments of trial and appellate courts dismissing the suit of legal heirs were restored, and the proceedings of the complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 were also restored. Head NotesCase Description

Haji MUHAMMAD YUNIS (DECEASED) vs Mst — 2022 SCMR 1282 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 SCMR