Mst. LIAQAT SULTANA and others---Petitioners Versus Mst.

MUMTAZ TAHAWAR and others---

Respondents

Citation: 2023 MLD 1405

Result: Petition Dismissed
Court: Lahore High Court
Date of Decision: 26.10.2022
Judge(s): Shahid Bilal Hassan, J
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 64976 of 2020
JUDGMENT

1. Introduction This judgment addresses a revision petition along with

connected cases involving disputes over the inheritance and property
rights of late Tahawar Ali Khan. Several suits were filed by various parties
seeking declarations, partition, and revocation of a succession certificate.
The suits were consolidated, and the trial court decreed the suits,
canceling alleged gift deeds and ordering revocation of the succession
certificate.

2. Gift Deeds Declared Fraudulent The trial court declared that the gift
deeds allegedly executed by Tahawar Ali Khan in favor of specific
individuals were false and fabricated through fraud and forgery. The
documents were canceled, and criminal proceedings were recommended
against certain individuals involved in the creation and use of these
documents.

3. Ownership of Company Shares Dismissed The plaintiffs' claim

related to Mst. Akbari Khanum's ownership of shares in International
Publishers was dismissed due to a lack of evidence.

4. Revocation of Succession Certificate The trial court accepted the

application for the revocation of the succession certificate issued on
December 12, 1997, based on fraud and misrepresentation, granting the
defendants their share of the movable assets left by the deceased.

5. Appeals and Modifications The defendants filed nine appeals against

the trial court's judgment. The appellate court modified the judgment to
exclude the cancellation of a sale deed in favor of Raaziq International
(Pvt.) Limited, as the entity had not been made a party to the suit.

6. Revision Petition The petitioners filed revision petitions, challenging

the judgments and decrees of the appellate court.

7. Status of Legal Heirs Confirmed The legal status of defendants 9 to

12 as legal heirs of Tahawar Ali Khan was confirmed, based on evidence
and previous court orders.

8. Directorship of International Publishers Disputed The court found

that there was no conclusive evidence to establish that Mst. Akbari
Khanum was one of the directors of International Publishers, and the
company appeared to exist mainly on paper for correspondence purposes.

9. Gift Deeds Based on Fraud and Misrepresentation The gift deeds

were declared fraudulent and based on misrepresentation, as they failed
to establish the original transaction and execution of the deeds. Witnesses
and evidence were insufficient to validate the gift deeds.

10. Non-Impleading of Parties in Sale Deed Matter The court

emphasized that the sale deed could not be canceled without including
Raaziq International (Pvt.) Limited and its Chief Executive, Mr.
Muhammad Nadeem Khan, as parties to the suit.

11. Non-Interference in Concurrent Findings The court emphasized

that unless there were misreadings or non-readings of evidence,
jurisdictional errors, or findings contrary to law, it would not interfere in
revisional jurisdiction. Concurrent findings on questions of fact were not
open to revision unless they suffered from illegality or irregularity.

12. Dismissal of Revision Petitions The revision petition and connected

cases were dismissed as they lacked merit and substance.

Legal References

Peer Baksh through LRs and others v. Mst. Khanzadi and others (2016
SCMR 1417)

Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469)

Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board Rawalpindi v.

Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCMR 161)

Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others (2017 SCMR

679)

Muhammad Sarwar and others v. Hashmal Khan and others (PLD 2022
Supreme Court 13)

Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 21)

JUDGMENT

This single judgment will decide the captioned revision petition as

well as connected C.Rs. bearing Nos.64972 of 2020, 9062 of 2021 and
4430 of 2021, as one and the same judgments and decrees have been
called into question in all the revision petitions.

2. Succinctly, the present respondents Nos. 1 to 4 instituted a suit for

declaration and partition on 05.07.1997. The present respondents Nos.7
to 10 also instituted another suit for declaration and partition on
13.05.1998 with regards to the suit property. In both the suits, the
respondents/plaintiffs have sought declaratory decree with partition of
the suit property: movable and immovable of late Tahawar Ali Khan and
also sought revocation of succession certificate dated 12.12.1997
regarding movable property of the said Tahawar Ali Khan. The
petitioners in all revision petitions contested the suits and prayed for
dismissal of the same. Both the suits and application for revocation of
succession certificate were consolidated by the learned trial Court and
out of divergent pleadings of the parties consolidated issues were
framed. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence
in pro and contra. On conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court vide
impugned judgment and decree dated 19.06.2007 decreed the suits as
such:-
'In view of the facts discussed above, suit of the plaintiffs as well
as defendants Nos.9 to 12 are hereby decreed in their favour to
the effect that all of the gift deeds allegedly executed by
Tahawar Ali Khan deceased in favour of Karman Tahawar,
Sohail Nasir and Jamal Nasir, Sultan Tahawar and Aalam
Tahawar are false and baseless documents as the same have
been fabricated by them by way of fraud, forgery and
misrepresentation with the active assistance of Shaiq
Siddiquee Advocate, who acted as local commissioner without
proof or any justification for his appointment as such.
Therefore, all of the aforementioned documents are hereby
cancelled. Moreover the registered gift deed in favour of Azam
Tahawar too has been proved to be false and baseless as the
aforesaid Azam Tahawar has failed to prove its execution in
accordance with law. However, no evidence has been produced
to prove that the document was prepared by way of forgery or
fraud; and the aforesaid Azam Tahawar cannot be made
criminally liable for fabricating a false gift deed merely on the
ground of his failure to prove the document because proof of
involvement in fabricating a document is one thing while
failure to prove the execution of a document is another.
Therefore, criminal proceedings against the defendants Nos.2
to 5 and 7 and the aforesaid Shqiq Siddiqui Advocate may be
initiated under relevant provisions of Pakistan Penal Code as it
has become evident that all of them got false and fabricated
gift deed executed by way of fraud and forgery and used the
document to get monetary gains as well as to deprive the
plaintiffs and defendants Nos.9 to 12 of their due share in the
suit-property. Therefore, all of the gift deeds in favour of
defendants Nos.2 to 7 are hereby cancelled and they will have
 no legal effect upon the rights of the plaintiffs and defendants
Nos.9 to 12.
However, the plaintiffs' claim on the basis of legal status of Mst.
Akbari Khanum as one of the Directors of International
Publishers is not tenable in view of the evidence on the record,
therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' suit relating to their claim
regarding ownership of a share of the suit-land as one of the
Directors is hereby dismissed.
While deciding issue No.9 it was proved that the succession
certificate issued on 12.12.1997 was based on fraud and
misrepresentation, therefore, the application filed by
defendants Nos.9 to 12 for revocation of the aforementioned
succession certificate under section 383 of Succession Act,
1925 is hereby accepted and the impugned succession
certificate is hereby revoked and the defendants Nos.9 to 12
are entitled to get the share of the movable assets bequeathed
by the deceased. Therefore, both Sohail Nasir and Jamal Nasir
defendants Nos.3 and 4 are hereby required to deposit the
remaining sum of the amount drawn by them from the account
of Tahawar Ali Khan at Grindlays Bank and the amount drawn
from the court which was deposited by Sohail Shafique as
arrears of rent, after deducting their share as one of the heirs
of Tahawar Ali Khan. Since all of the gift deeds in favour of
defendants Nos.2 to 7 are hereby declared as null and void and
in-operative upon the rights of the plaintiffs as well as
defendants Nos.9 to 12, and in the course of determination of
issue No.10 it was proved that Late Tahawar Ali Khan was
owner of movable as well as immovable property which
included the residential portion of the suit-property comprised
in plot No.129-E.1 Gulberg III Lahore, commercial portion of
the suit-property known as Tahawar Plaza comprised in plot
No.129-B/E.1 Gulberg III Lahore, an amount of Rs.85,715/-
deposited by the deceased in his account No.1161638556 at
Grind Lays Bank Gulberg Lahore, a sum of Rs.300,000/-
deposited by Sohail Shafique as arrears of rent during the
proceedings of ejectment petition titled Tahawar Ali Khan v.
Sohail Shafique, the royalty of books Biographical Encyclopedia
of Pakistan and Man eaters of Sunder bens, therefore, the
plaintiffs as well as the defendants Nos.9 to 12 are entitled to
get their share in the movable as well as immovable assets left
by the deceased according to law of inheritance.
Since the suit-property of the buildings comprised in plots
No.129/E.1 (residential portion) and plot No.129-B/E.1
(commercial portion-Tahawar Plaza), therefore, a preliminary
decree of the partition is hereby issued in favour of the parties
 holding them entitled to the ownership as well as possession of
their share of the suit property as prescribed by law of
inheritance.
The record shows that the defendants have produced
Ex./P.W.8/D.1 and Ex./P.W.8/D.2 which is copy of an agreement
to sell executed by Tahawar Ali Khan in favour of Mian Ahmad
Irfan and a registered sale deed in favour of Raziq
International through its Chief Executive namely Mr. Nadeem
Khan. Both of the documents shall have no legal effect upon the
rights of the parties as discussed while deciding issue No.10.
However, Mian Ahmad Irfan will have an option of filing a suit
for specific performance of an agreement to sell, while Nadeem
Khan Chief Executive of Raziq International is hereby directed
to get his right declared by filing a suit for declaration on the
basis of the alleged sale deed. Moreover, the money deposited
by Tradex Private Limited as rent shall be distributed among
the parties according to their lawful shares while the amount
deposited by Mian Ahmad Irfan or Tradex are hereby entitled
to get the amount deposited by him in pursuance of the alleged
agreement to sell, refunded, in accordance with law. While all
of transfers of different portion of the suit property made after
filing of the main suit titled Mst. Mumtaz Tahawar and others
v. Liaqat Sultan and others on 05.07.1997 shall be considered
as null and void and in-operative upon the rights of the
plaintiffs as well as defendants Nos.9 to 12 by virtue of the
doctrine of lis-pendence as envisaged in section 52 of Transfer
of Property Act.
Therefore Mr. Sajjad Aslam Virrak Advocate, Butar Law
Chambers, 105-Al-falah Building, The Mall, Lahore is hereby
appointed as local commissioner. He is hereby directed to
conduct a local inspection of both residential as well as
commercial part of the suit-property and to prepare a detailed
report regarding his proposals as to the partition of both of the
portions of the suit-property. The report must include the site-
plans enumerating the separate schemes of partition of both
residential as well as commercial areas. His fees is hereby fixed
as Rs.48,000/- which shall be paid by all the parties at the rate
of Rs.3000/- each. The record shows that the plaintiffs as well
as defendants Nos.9 to 12 were kept deprived of their due
share of the suit-property by the malicious acts of defendants
Nos.1 to 8 and the latter had been receiving rent of different
portions of the suit-property, even in excess to the area
mentioned in the aforementioned forged gift deeds. The record
shows that the aforesaid defendants were directed to deposit
the rents of different portions of the suit-property received by
 them individually, in the court and in this regard specific
directions were issued by the Civil as well as District Courts
but no such order was complied with. Moreover, the court
appointed Receiver for the said purpose on 10.10.2000 but the
Receiver prayed for the revocation of his appointment vide his
statement dated 17.04.2001 and once again the matter was
ignored. Therefore, the aforesaid Sajjad Aslam Virrak Butar
Law Chambers 105 Al-falah Building, The Mall, Lahore shall
also act as a receiver of commercial part of the suit-property
under Order XL of C.P.C. and whole of the building of the
Tahawar Plaza is hereby committed to the possession, control
as well as management of the Receiver. Learned Receiver shall
be entitled to collect rentals of different portions of Tahawar
Plaza by 5th of each month and shall be bound to deposit the
same in the Court along with Statement of accounts by 10th of
every month and all of the shareholders shall be entitled to
draw their share of the monthly rent of the suit-property in
accordance with law and the Receiver shall be entitled to the
monthly remuneration which shall be equal to 2 per cent of the
amount of rent recovered each month. Robkar be issued to the
local commissioner requiring him to do the needful. Receiver
shall exercise the same powers and perform the same functions
as may be performed or exercised by a landlord appointed for
collection of rent under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
Ordinance. The arrangement shall remain till the issuance of
final decree of partition of the suit property .'

3. Being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, the

defendants/petitioners and other defendants preferred nine (9) appeals.
The learned appellate Court vide impugned consolidated judgment and
decree dated 16.09.2020 modified the judgment and decree passed by
the learned trial Court to the extent that sale deed in favour of Raaziq
International (Pvt.) Limited through its Chief Executive Mr. Muhammad
Nadeem Khan cannot be cancelled without impleading him as party to
the suit, therefore, judgment of learned trial Court to this extent was set
aside. One appeal titled "Liaquat Sultana and others v. Mst. Mumtaz
Tahawar and others", two appeals titled "Kamran Tahawar and others v.
Akbari Khanum and others", two appeals titled "International Publishers
and others v. Kamran Tahawar and others" were dismissed whereas
appeals titled "Messrs Raaziq International and others v. Naushaba
Akhtarand others" and "Raaziq International and others v. Mumtaz
Tahawar and others" were accepted.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the revision

petition in hand as well as connected C.Rs. Nos.64972 of 2020, 9062 of
2021 and 4430 of 2021 have been filed by the petitioners.
 5. Heard.

6. Status of the defendants Nos.9 to 12 being legal heirs of the late

Tahawar Ali Khan is an undisputed right now because the same has
been established from the orders of this Court dated 02.03.2001,
available on the record as Ex.D10, which divulges that all the parties
have admitted and accepted the status of the said defendants Nos.9 to
12 as legal heirs of late Tahawar Ali Khan in C.R. No.261 of 2001;
therefore, keeping in view the said factum as well as other evidence in
the shape of admission of the P.W.8 and D.W.1, the learned Courts
below have judiciously and rightly adjudicated upon the matter on this
issue, so the findings on this score are upheld and maintained.

7. So far as the second question that Mst. Akbari Khanum was one of
the Director of International Publishers is concerned, it is observed that
when evidence of the parties has been pondered upon, it has surfaced
that Tahawar Ali Khan (late), during his life time, used the letter head
pad of the said company for the purpose of correspondence with various
department and he used to run the same solely. No documentary proof
has been brought on record depicting or showing that any portion of the
suit property was in the name of the said company i.e. International
Publishers and Mst. Akbari Khanum with Maqsood Ali Khan were
Directors whereas the late Tahawar Ali Khan was Managing Director,
because the documents Ex.P3/3 and Ex.P.W.8/D-1 do not support the
said stance, rather it has emerged that the said documents were
executed by late Tahawar Ali Khan in his personal capacity and not as a
Managing Director of the said company. Moreover, no rules of business
or any resolution, appointing the said Akbari Khanum and Maqsood Ali
Khan as Directors has been brought on record. In this regard, the
learned Courts below have rightly appreciated the document Ex.D12,
certified copy of order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the learned Addl.
District Judge, Lahore during proceedings of an appeal, wherein one of
the alleged Director appeared and recorded his statement that he had
no concern and interest with the suit property, so his name was deleted
as one of the promoter of the International Publishers by the said Court.
Apart from this, not an iota of evidence has been brought on record
showing that said Akbari Khanum and Maqood Ali Khan ever made any
investment in the said alleged Company and nothing has been brought
to show that the said persons ever performed their duties as Directors
of the said alleged company. In this view of the matter, the learned
Courts below have rightly reached to a conclusion that the said
company was only in papers and was used as a reference during
correspondence with the third parties and no portion of the disputed
property i.e. Tahawar Plaza was in the name of the said
Company/International Publishers (Pvt.) Limited. In this view of the
matter, the findings recorded by the learned Courts below after
evaluating evidence of the parties in a minute manner on this issue are
upheld and maintained.

8. The question with regards to gifting of some portions of the

disputed property i.e. Tahawar Plaza is concerned, it is observed that
ingredients for a valid gift are: offer, acceptance and delivery of
possession. When sanctity of a gift is challenged or called into question
especially on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation, the beneficiary
has not only to prove the valid execution of gift deed or mutation but
also the original transaction. Reliance is placed on judgment reported
as Peer Baksh through LRs and others v. Mst. Khanzadi and others
(2016 SCMR 1417). The gift deeds Ex.D2 dated 18.01.1997 and Ex.D3
dated 17.09.1996, allegedly executed in favour of Kamran Tahawar and
Sohail Nasir, though are registered documents and presumption of
correctness are attached to them, but it is a settled principle of law, as
observed above, that when sanctity of such a document is challenged,
the beneficiary has not only to prove the said document but also the
original transaction. However, in the present case, it is observed that
the beneficiaries i.e. Karman Tahawar, Sohail Nasir, Jamal Nasir, Sultan
Tahawar and Aalam Tahawar have not only miserably failed to prove the
original transaction of gift but also the subsequent transaction of
registered gift deeds because late Tahawar Ali Khan admittedly died on
06.01.1997 (Ex.D.W.8/4, whereas alleged gift deed in favour of Kamran
Tahawar was executed on 13.01.1997 through Muhammad Shaiq
Siddiqui Advocate as local commission and the said document has
signatures and thumb impressions of late Tahawar Ali Khan, which
cannot be said anything but a fraud and misrepresentation because
when a person has died on 06.01.1997, how he can make his signatures
and put his thumb impressions on 13.01.1997. Ex.D3 is the alleged gift
deed in favour of Sohail Nasir but he also could not prove the original
transaction as well as the execution of registered gift deed by producing
the marginal witnesses and the revenue officer. Same remained the
position with documents Ex.D19 and Ex.D27 to Ex.D29, gift deeds in
favour of Jamal Nasir, Sultan Tahawar, Azam Tahawar and Aalam
Tahawar. Only one marginal witness namely Khursheed Alam with
regards to gift deed in favour of Azam Tahawar and Haroon Shafique
marginal witness germane to gift deed in favour of Aalam Tahawar
besides Muhammad Shaiq Siddiqui, Advocate, local commission have
been produced, whereas law requires that in order to prove valid
execution of a document, at least two truthful witnesses are to be
produced, as has been enunciated under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-
Shahadat Order, 1984. Even, Azam Tahawar, alleged donee of Ex.D16
did not enter into the witness box so as to corroborate his stance and
also did not produce the local commission in whose presence the
document was executed and the marginal witnesses signed it. The
alleged marginal witness of Ex.D16 namely Khursheed Alam D.W.5
deposed that the alleged gift deed was not written down in his
presence. Same remained the situation with Ex.D17 and Ex.D18, gift
deeds in favour of Jamal Nasir and Sultan Tahawar, because M. Shaiq
Siddiqui Advocate not only purchased the stamp papers for execution of
gift deeds but also was an identifier and one of the marginal witness of
the said documents. The other marginal witness was clerk of the said M.
Shaiq Siddiqui Advocate, meaning thereby the documents have been
executed with active collusion of the said M. Shaiq Siddiqui Advocate in
order to deprive of other legal heirs of Tahawar Ali Khan (late), for
some worldly gains. In this view of the matter, the learned Courts below
after evaluating and discussing evidence of the parties, oral as well as
documentary, in a minute manner have reached to a just conclusion that
the gift deeds in favour of Kamran Tahawar, Sohail Nasir, Jamal Nasir,
Sultan Tahawar, Azam Tahawar and Alam Tahawar were based on fraud
and have rightly been declared as illegal, forged and fabricated
documents. The findings on this point, being upto the dexterity, are also
upheld and maintained.

9. Question with regards to alienation of a portion of his property

measuring 2456' 11'' Sq.feet of the commercial building for a
consideration of Rs.800,000/- in favour of Raaziq International (Pvt.)
Limited through its Chief Executive Mr. Muhammad Nadeem Khan in
the year 1994 by late Tahawar Ali Khan vide Ex.D.W.8/D-2, has rightly
been adjudicated upon by the learned appellate Court vide impugned
judgment and decree dated 16.09.2020, because when the said Raaziq
International (Pvt.) Limited through its Chief Executive Mr. Muhammad
Nadeem Khan has not been impleaded as party to the suit and has not
been provided with an opportunity to defend himself, no adverse order
can be passed against him, as it would amount to condemn him
unheard, which is not requirement of law, rather free and fair
opportunity of defending and presenting one's case has to be provided.

10. Matter germane to revocation of succession certificate issued on

12.12.1997, keeping in view the factum that defendants Nos.9 to 12 are
also legal heirs of late Tahawar Ali Khan, has also rightly been adjudged
by the learned Courts below, because the said succession certificate
was obtained by concealing true facts from the Court, seized of the
matter. In this view of the matter, no illegality and irregularity has been
committed by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned
judgments and decrees.

11. In addition to the above, the concurrent findings on facts cannot

be disturbed when the same do not suffer from any misreading and non-
reading of evidence, howsoever erroneous in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; reliance
is placed on Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014
SCMR 1469), Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt.
Board Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCMR 161),
Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others (2017 SCMR
679), Muhammad Sarwar and others v. Hashmal Khan and others (PLD
2022 Supreme Court 13) and Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan (PLD 2022
Supreme Court 21) wherein it has been held:-
'There is a difference between the misreading, non-reading and
misappreciation of the evidence therefore, the scope of the
appellate and revisional jurisdiction must not be confused and
care must be taken for interference in revisional jurisdiction
only in the cases in which the order passed or a judgment
rendered by a subordinate Court is found perverse or suffering
from a jurisdictional error or the defect of misreading or non-
reading of evidence and the conclusion drawn is contrary to
law. This court in the case of Sultan Muhammad and another v.
Muhammad Qasim and others (2010 SCMR 1630) held that the
concurrent findings of three courts below on a question of fact,
if not based on misreading or non-reading of evidence and not
suffering from any illegality or material irregularity effecting
the merits of the case are not open to question at the revisional
stage.'

12. Pursuant to the above, when there appears no illegality and

irregularity as well as wrong exercise of jurisdiction, the revision
petition in hand as well as connected C.Rs. bearing Nos. 64972 of 2020,
9062 of 2021 and 4430 of 2021 being without any force and substance,
are dismissed. No order as to the costs.