Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1906 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Iqbal Ahmed Siddiqui vs Khalid Maudod

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

Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1906 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Iqbal Ahmed Siddiqui VS Khalid Maudod Siddiqui Ss.8 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.117 & 119---Suit for possession, recovery of mesne profit and permanent injunction---Benami transaction, ingredients of---Burden of proof---Second appeal, scope of---Interference in concurrent findings of courts below---Present second appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the concurrent findings of the Trial court and appellate court, both of which had decreed in favour of respondent No.1 regarding possession and mesne profits of the suit property---Trial Court ordered the appellant to hand over vacant possession and pay mesne profits of Rs. 20,000 per month until delivery of possession which decision was upheld in appeal---It was the case of the appellant/defendant that respondent No.1 was neither the bona fide purchaser nor absolute owner of the suit property; that the suit property was originally purchased by the appellant's deceased father and paternal uncle (respondent No.1's father) in a benami transaction, and was held in trust by the latter for the legal heirs; that no consideration was paid for the transfer of the property to respondent No.1, which was based solely on a registered gift deed---Held: Appellant/defendant had neither sought cancellation of the gift deed nor filed suit for declaration that the subject property was owned by his deceased father---Moreover, paternal uncle of appellant who was stated to be the custodian of the suit property allegedly held in trust for the purpose of administration, did not file any application to be impleaded as party in the suit---Further, there was no evidence on record to reflect that the donor challenged the gift deed---The ingredients of a benami transaction were not even pleaded by the appellant and the courts below had correctly observed that the entire defense of the appellant was based on his oral and unsubstantiated assertions---Burden of proving the benami transaction was correctly placed on the appellant and same was in accordance with Art. 117 & 119 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---No infirmity was found warranting interference by the High Court in concurrent findings of courts below as jurisdiction under S.100 C.P.C. was restricted as there was no misreading or non-reading of evidence or perverse appreciation of evidence on record.

Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1906 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Iqbal Ahmed Siddiqui vs Khalid Maudod Siddiqui Ss — 2025 MLD 1906 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD