| Case ID |
2e6c4bca-4e22-4f60-a0cc-9d5cf7cb3b56 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revision No.274 of 2015 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 01, 2022 |
| Hearing Date |
Nov 29, 2022 |
| Decision |
The Balochistan High Court, presided by Justice Gul Hassan Tareen, delivered a decision on December 1, 2022, setting aside the appellate court's decree which had allowed the respondents' appeal. This effectively restored the trial court's dismissal of the respondents' suit. The court found that the respondents failed to provide adequate evidence to support their claims, particularly regarding the execution of the contract of sale and the confirmation deed. The absence of proper attestation by two marginal witnesses, as required by the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, led to the invalidation of the respondents' documents. Consequently, the court upheld the trial court's original judgment, emphasizing the necessity of stringent evidentiary standards in civil litigation. |
| Summary |
In the legal dispute of NAIMATULLAH and others versus MIR JAMAL and others, adjudicated by the Balochistan High Court under Civil Revision No.274 of 2015, the court issued a pivotal ruling on December 1, 2022. The case originated from a suit filed by the respondents, MIR JAMAL and others, seeking a declaration of ownership, cancellation of mutation entries, correction of revenue records, and a perpetual injunction against the petitioners, NAIMATULLAH and others. The foundation of the respondents' claims was an alleged contract of sale dated July 9, 2002, involving the transfer of land in exchange for Rs. 100,000/-.
The proceedings commenced in the Court of Qazi, Kharan, where the trial court dismissed the respondents' suit. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the respondents appealed, leading the case to the Balochistan High Court. The hearing took place on November 29, 2022, with Justice Gul Hassan Tareen presiding over the matter.
A critical examination of the evidence revealed significant shortcomings in the respondents' case. The Balochistan High Court meticulously scrutinized the execution of the contract of sale and the subsequent confirmation deed. It was determined that the respondents failed to substantiate their claims with the necessary two attesting witnesses, as mandated by the Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984). Specifically, the scribe and the single marginal witness presented by the respondents did not fulfill the legal requirements to validate the documents, as they could not confirm that the parties had executed the contract in their presence.
The court referenced several precedents to bolster its decision, including Khairati and 4 others v. Aleem-ud-Din and another (PLD 1973 SC 295 rel.), Agha Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Syed Akhtar Ali (1994 MLD 1747), Jan Muhammad v. Abdul Rehman (PLD 1998 Qta 34), Mst. Shamim Akhtar v. Province of Punjab through Collector/DOR (2019 YLR 870), and Shah Muhammad v. Atta Muhammad (2005 SCMR 969). These cases collectively emphasized the necessity of robust evidence and proper procedural adherence in property disputes.
Justice Tareen underscored that appellate courts must adhere to the findings of lower courts unless substantial grounds justify an overturn. In this instance, the respondents did not present sufficient evidence to challenge the trial court's judgment. The High Court concluded that the respondents' failure to prove the execution of the contract and confirmation deed rendered their claims invalid, thereby affirming the trial court's dismissal.
The decision highlights the importance of stringent evidentiary standards in civil litigation, particularly in matters involving property disputes and land mutations. It serves as a crucial reference for future cases, reinforcing the legal requirements for validating contracts of sale and the necessity of proper attestation under the Qanun-e-Shahadat. Moreover, the ruling reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural integrity, ensuring that property ownership transitions are conducted with due legal diligence.
This case also underscores the role of legal representation in navigating complex civil disputes. The petitioners were represented by Advocates Taj Muhammad Mengal and Zahoor Ahmed Mengal, who effectively highlighted the deficiencies in the respondents' evidence, while the respondents were represented by Advocate Muhammad Zahid Muqeem Ansari and State Counsel Changaiz Dashti. The court's thorough analysis and reliance on established legal precedents ensured a fair and just resolution.
In conclusion, the Balochistan High Court's decision in this case not only resolves the immediate dispute between the involved parties but also reinforces the broader legal principles governing property disputes in Pakistan. It emphasizes the necessity of comprehensive evidence and proper procedural adherence, thereby contributing to the development of a more reliable and predictable legal framework for handling similar cases in the future. |
| Court |
Balochistan High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Majlis-e-Shoora, Kharan,
Court of Qazi, Kharan
|
| Judges |
Gul Hassan Tareen, J
|
| Lawyers |
Taj Muhammad Mengal,
Zahoor Ahmed Mengal,
Muhammad Zahid Muqeem Ansari,
Changaiz Dashti
|
| Petitioners |
NAIMATULLAH and others
|
| Respondents |
MIR JAMAL and others
|
| Citations |
2024 SLD 2843,
2024 CLC 75
|
| Other Citations |
Khairati and 4 others v. Aleem-ud-Din and another PLD 1973 SC 295 rel.,
Agha Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Syed Akhtar Ali 1994 MLD 1747,
Jan Muhammad v. Abdul Rehman PLD 1998 Qta 34,
Mst. Shamim Akhtar v. Province of Punjab through Collector/DOR 2019 YLR 870,
Mst. Rasheeda Begum and others v. Muhammad Yousaf and others, (2002 SCMR 1089),
Shah Muhammad v. Atta Muhammad, (2005 SCMR 969)
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Specific Relief Act, 1877,
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
|
| Sections |
33,
39,
42,
54,
117,
120,
54
|