In the Supreme Court of Pakistan 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial 
 
Civil Appeal No.697 of 2008. 
(On appeal from judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore 
dated 24.5.2004, passed in Civil Revision No.680/2003) 
 
Baja (deceased) through his L.Rs, etc 
…Appellants 
Versus 
Mst. Bakhan & others 
… Respondents 
For the appellants: 
Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sindhu, ASC. 
 
 
For respondents 1&5: 
Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, ASC. 
 
  
Respondents No.2,3,4&6: 
Ex parte. 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
16.6.2015. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Anwar Zaheer Jamali, J.- This appeal, with leave of the 
Court in terms of the leave granting order dated 30.7.2008, is 
directed against the judgment, dated 24.05.2004, passed by the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore, in C.R. No. 680 of 2003, whereby this civil 
revision was dismissed and the findings of the learned Additional 
District Judge Nankana Sahib, decreeing the suit for declaration and 
permanent injunction filed by Respondent No. 1, vide judgment 
dated 17.04.2003, were maintained. 
2. 
The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal 
are that Respondent No. 1 (Mst. Bhakan), who is an illiterate village 
woman, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against 
the Appellants and Respondents No. 2 to 4, stating that she was the 
C.A-697/2008. 
2
owner in possession of suit land admeasuring 9 kanals 1 marla which 
she had never gifted to Respondents No. 2 to 4, who were her cousin 
and co-sharers in the joint holding. She further stated that on 
19.11.1967 Respondents No. 2 to 4 fraudulently managed some 
entry of gift on her behalf in their favour through mutation No.4 and 
thereafter fraudulently sold/transferred the suit land alongwith their 
other holding, total admeasuring 194 kanals 7 marlas in favour of 
Appellants through registered sale deed dated 25.6.1975. Hence the 
sale made by Respondents No. 2 to 4 in favour of appellants to the 
extent of her share was illegal.  
3. 
The suit was contested by the Appellants, inter alia, 
contending to be the bona fide purchasers of the suit land, and also 
on the ground that the suit was hopelessly time barred as it was filed 
30 years after the mutation entry of gift in favour of Respondents No. 
2 to 4 made in the revenue records. 
4. 
The civil Court framed twelve issues and after recording 
evidence of both the sides, dismissed the suit on 21.7.2001. 
Aggrieved by such judgment, Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal 
before the learned Additional District Judge Nankana Sahib, who, 
vide judgment dated 17.4.2003, allowed the appeal and decreed the 
suit in her favour. The Appellants challenged the said judgment of 
the learned Additional District Judge before the Lahore High Court, 
Lahore, where it was maintained and the Civil Revision filed by the 
Appellants was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 24.5.2004. 
C.A-697/2008. 
3
The Appellants have now approached this Court seeking to challenge 
the said judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore.  
5. 
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and 
perused the case record which reveals that Respondent No.1 herself 
appeared as PW-1 and stated that she has a son and four daughters, 
while Respondents No. 2 to 4 are her cousins, and that she neither 
gifted her share in the joint holding to them nor did she ever appear 
to get such mutation entered attested in the revenue records.  
6. 
The law, expounded by this Court in the case of Arshad 
Khan v. Mst. Resham Jan and others (2005 SCMR 1859) in the context 
of Article 127 of the Qann-e-Shahadat Order 1984 is very clear, which 
grants special protection to illiterate and pardanashin ladies in such 
type of transactions. In the cases of gift, particularly, when the donor 
is some illiterate pardanashin lady, disputing the very genuineness of 
the gift on the allegation of fraud, for their satisfaction the Courts 
have to look into the surrounding circumstances to ascertain the true 
intent behind the gift so as to determine its validity, and to ensure 
that women are not deprived of their property through frivolous or 
fraudulent means by taking advantage of their illiteracy, weak social 
background and other compelling circumstances to which they may 
be easily exposed. In the instant case, there appears to be no 
justification or plausible reason in support of the alleged gift made by 
Respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondents No. 2 to 4, especially 
when Respondent No. 1 had five children of her own while alleged 
C.A-697/2008. 
4
donee’s were closely related to her and they were in position to 
encash her shortcomings, as discussed above. Even otherwise, in 
view of Article 127 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the burden 
of proving the validity of gift vis-à-vis good faith was on the 
beneficiaries of such transaction. But, in the present case, 
Respondents No. 2 to 4, the donees, despite being served with the 
summons did not appear to contest the Suit, to establish the validity 
of the alleged gift in their favour, and the Appellants, being 
subsequent buyer in the year 1975, also failed to prove the necessary 
ingredients of a valid gift. Therefore, the findings of the learned 
Additional District Judge, and of the learned judge in chambers of the 
Lahore High Court, are unexceptionable.  
7. 
Since the Appellants have failed to prove the validity of 
the gift allegedly made by respondent No.1 in favour of Respondents 
No. 2 to 4, we are inclined to hold that the consequent entry in the 
revenue record had been managed fraudulently and thus it is void. It 
a settled principle of law that any superstructure built on the basis of 
a fraudulent transaction must collapse upon failure of such 
transaction. Therefore, the contention of the Appellants that they 
are bonafide purchasers of the joint holding, including the 9-kanals 1-
marla land owned by respondent No.1, hence protected under 
section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not carry any 
weight. Furthermore, it is also settled law that the period of 
limitation to challenge a fraudulent transaction runs from the date of 
its knowledge. According to the statement recorded by Respondent 
C.A-697/2008. 
5
No. 1 as PW-1, she came to know about the gift mutation in the year 
1995, whereafter she filed the suit within five months. This 
statement has gone unchallenged during her cross examination. 
Therefore, the suit filed by Respondent No. 1 after gaining 
knowledge of the fraudulent transaction, was not barred by 
limitation.  
8. 
In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment 
of the High Court and the judgment of the learned Additional District 
Judge, are maintained and this appeal is dismissed.  
9. 
However, it is made clear that such decree will not affect 
the sale transaction dated 25.6.1975, in favour of the Appellants, 
except to the extent of the 9 kanals 1 marla land owned by 
Respondent No. 1. Moreover, it is left open for the Appellants to sue 
Respondents No. 2 to 4, for compensation and damages arising out 
of the fraud played by them with Respondent No. 1, which ultimately 
resulted in financial loss to them.  
 
 
 
 
Islamabad, 
16th June, 2015. 
Approved for reporting. 
��ا�� 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
