| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1583 2026 SLD 1583 = 2026 SCP 114 = 2026 SCMR 1293 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.429-P of 2024 [Against judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition No.2566-P/2020]
Presented By: Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar Justice Musarrat Hilali Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan
Mr. Inayat ur Rehman, ASC (Via video link, Peshawar)
Respondent in person
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.429-P of 2024 [Against judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition No.2566-P/2020]
Presented By: Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar Justice Musarrat Hilali Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan
Mr. Inayat ur Rehman, ASC (Via video link, Peshawar)
Respondent in person
Sher Alam Khan ...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
Mst. Fozia Tabbasum Afridi & others ...Respondent(s)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199(1)(a)(ii)
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
Section:
Summary The Supreme Court allowed the petition partially, setting aside lower courts’ orders only to the extent that a one-kanal plot at Yasrab CNG Pump, Peshawar, was declared part of the dower in favour of respondent No.1. The Court found the Kabeen Nama and the claimed consent/ownership unproved: witnesses failed to establish execution, forensic proof was not sought after denials, and revenue records showed the petitioner (father-in-law) as owner. Other findings and the decree for monetary dower and gold were maintained. Core points Marriage and Kabeen Nama: Parties married in 2009; a Kabeen Nama dated 24.02.2009 allegedly included the plot as dower. Petitioner's denial: Petitioner (father-in-law) denied signing or consenting to include the plot; claimed he, not his son, owned it. Burden of proof: Once denial was made, respondent had to prove execution of the Kabeen Nama by cogent and admissible evidence. Witnesses failed: Marginal witnesses (PW-4 and PW-5) admitted they did not witness signatures; their evidence did not prove execution. No forensic check: Signatures were not subjected to forensic/expert examination despite specific denial. Ownership contradicted: Kabeen Nama claimed the son owned the plot by mutation No.3604 (2003), but revenue evidence (DW-3 Halqa Patwari) and mutation showed the petitioner as recorded owner. No documents were produced to substantiate the son’s ownership. Legal principle: A third person’s property cannot be pledged as dower without that owner’s clear, proven consent. High Court error: The High Court wrongly refused to interfere merely because of concurrent findings, ignoring misreading/non-reading of evidence and legal infirmities. Relief granted: The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and set aside the grant of the one-kanal plot as dower; all other findings (including monetary dower and gold) were left intact. Law and sections Law / Provision Section / Source Short explanation Application in this case Constitutional writ jurisdiction (certiorari) Article 199(1)(a)(ii) Constitution of Pakistan High Court can issue writs against subordinate courts/tribunals for illegality…