| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4531 = 2026 SLD 4531 = 2026 PLJ 478 |
Supreme Appellate Court, Pakistan
C.A. No. 140-P and C.P. No. 444-P of 2018
Presented By: Yahya Afridi, CJ, Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb JUDGES
Mr. Shah Faisal Nasapi, ASC for Appellants (in both cases). Mr. Altaf Ahmad, ASC for
Respondents No. 1 (in both cases). Nemo for
Respondents. Date of hearing: 10.06.2026.
C.A. No. 140-P and C.P. No. 444-P of 2018
Presented By: Yahya Afridi, CJ, Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb JUDGES
Mr. Shah Faisal Nasapi, ASC for Appellants (in both cases). Mr. Altaf Ahmad, ASC for
Respondents No. 1 (in both cases). Nemo for
Respondents. Date of hearing: 10.06.2026.
SHER SAID and others--Appellants
VERSUS
UMAR AKHTAR and others--Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
Law: Contract Act, 1872
Section: 11
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
Section: 100
Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section: 41 ,53-A
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 185(3)--Contract Act, 1872 (IX of 1872), S. 11--Suit for Declaration--Correction of Revenue Entries and Compensation for Improvements--Both suits consolidated--Declaratory suit dismissed--Ejectment suit decreed--Minor's Contract--Exchange Deed--Iqrar Nama--Declaration--Ejectment--Compensation for Improvements--Proof of Documents--Thirty-year-old Documents--Presumption--Void Transaction--Unauthorized Occupation--A transaction entered into with a minor was void ab initio, Article 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order did not validate an otherwise void transaction, protection under Sections 41 and 53-A of Transfer of Property Act was unavailable, and unauthorized improvements made on another's property did not entitle occupier to compensation--Section 11 of Contract Act, 1872, rendered a minor incompetent to contract--A transaction entered into directly with a minor was void ab initio and incapable of conferring enforceable rights--documents were not proved in accordance with law--Material attesting witnesses and scribes were not produced--Mandatory requirements regarding proof of attested documents were not satisfied--A person who voluntarily raised construction or effected improvements upon another's property without consent of owner did so at his own risk--Such unauthorized improvements neither conferred title nor created a legal entitlement to compensation--A person occupying another's property as a tenant or under permissive possession could not claim compensation for improvements or constructions raised without consent of owner--Appeal dismissed. [Pp. 480 & 481] A & D Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)-- ----Art. 100--Presumption under Article 100 was merely evidentiary and rebuttable--It could not validate a transaction that was void under substantive law--A presumption regarding execution could not transform an invalid transaction into a valid…