| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1333 2026 SLD 1333 = 2026 SCP 28 = 2026 PLJ 200 = 2026 SCMR 1523 |
C.P.L.A No. 4878/2025 and CMA No.14023/2025 (Against the judgment dated 11.09.2025 passed by Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in Civil Revision No. 143 of 2023)
Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan Justice Shakeel Ahmad
Syed Shahab Qutub, ASC
Muhammad Ishfaq & another ...Appellant
VERSUS
Salma Begum ....Respondent
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42
Summary
The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed a civil petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Bench) judgment dated 11.09.2025, which allowed a civil revision and set aside lower courts' dismissals of a suit challenging a fraudulent sale mutation (No. 4763 dated 17.08.2015). The respondent, a pardanashin illiterate woman, alleged petitioners tricked her into providing thumb impressions under the guise of a rent agreement after her husband's death. The Court upheld the High Court's findings, noting petitioners' failure to prove the transaction's validity amid suspicious witness ties and lack of pleaded oral sale details.
Core Points
- Respondent filed suit claiming fraudulent sale mutation obtained via thumb impressions disguised as rent deed, exploiting her as a simple, illiterate pardanashin woman.
- Trial and appellate courts dismissed suit and appeal, but High Court allowed revision, setting aside concurrent findings due to petitioners' evidentiary failures.
- Respondent's cross-examination highlighted her vulnerability; her adult sons were present, but identification by biased witness (petitioners' relative) raised suspicions.
- Petitioners did not prove free consent, understanding of transaction, independent advice, trustworthy witnesses, or payment of consideration, violating safeguards for pardanashin women.
- Mutation based on unpleaded oral sale; party relying on mutation must independently prove underlying transaction, as mutation is not title document.
- Supreme Court found no illegality in High Court's revisional interference and dismissed petition.
Laws and Sections
| Law/Section | Description/Context |
|---|---|
| Article 185(3), Constitution of 1973 | Basis for Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court against High Court judgment. |
| Civil Revision No. 143 of 2023 | High Court revisional jurisdiction invoked by respondent to challenge lower courts' decisions. |
| Sale Mutation No. 4763 dated 17.08.2015 | Impugned revenue entry challenged as fraudulent; not a title document, requires proof of underlying transaction. |
| Cases: Phul Peer Shah, Ghulam Farid, Ghulam Muhammad | Establish safeguards for transactions with pardanashin women: prove free will, informed consent in understood language, independent advice, trustworthy witnesses, and consideration payment. |
| Case: Muhammad Akram | Mutation alone does not confer title; relying party must prove prior oral/written transaction when challenged. |
ORDER