IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
Mr. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel 
 
 
 
 
Civil Petition No.78-Q of 2016  
(Against the judgment dated 06.05.2016 passed by the  
High Court of Balochistan in C.R No.(S)32 of 2013) 
 
 
 
 
Abdul Ghani & others 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
Haji Abdul Fatah & others 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Sr.ASC 
 
Mr. Gohar Yaqoob Yousafzai, AOR 
 
For Respondent No.1: 
Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Buzdar, ASC 
 
For Respondent No.2: 
Mr. Liaqat Ali Jatoi, ASC 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
01.11.2021. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Abdul Fateh, 
respondent, remained successful throughout downstairs to counter 
petitioners’ claim over the suit property. At the center of controversy is 
Mst. Sahib Khatoon; she mothered plaintiff/respondent from her 
wedlock with Muhammad Musa, however, contracted second marriage 
with Muhammad Raheem after former’s death, survived by Muhammad 
Ibrahim, issueless, leaving petitioners as distant kinder in the field; 
they laid claim over the disputed land, partly on account of their being 
residual successors of Muhammad Ibrahim and partly through a sale. 
The respondent came up with a Qabin-nama dated 29.6.1949 (Ex.P-3), 
purporting transfer of the land as dower to the lady, on the strength 
Civil  Petition No.78-Q  of 2016 
2
whereof, a learned Civil Judge at Dhadar, District Khichi decreed the 
suit vide judgment and decree dated 31.12.2012, affirmed throughout 
lastly by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the High Court of Balochistan 
vide judgment dated 06.05.2016, vires whereof, are being assailed on a 
variety of grounds.  
2. 
 
Syed Ayaz Zahoor, learned Sr.ASC, contends that the 
Courts below ran into concurrence of error inasmuch as plaintiff’s 
claim, devoid of any proof, in the face of longstanding entries in the 
revenue record, reflecting multile mutations favouring the petitioners, 
there was hardly an occasion to uphold plaintiff’s claim; adds that Mst. 
Sahib Khatoon did not figure anywhere in the pedigree-table or in the 
revenue record whereas the petitioners, being rightful owners, are firmly 
entrenched in the suit property. None appeared to prove Ex.P-3 and as 
such acquisition of land partly through sale and partly through 
inheritance could not have been set aside. The learned counsel for the 
respondent has defended the impugned judgments being well reasoned, 
structured upon an ancient title document protected by the statutory 
presumption. 
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Position 
consistently 
taken 
by 
the 
petitioners, 
notwithstanding, 
Qabinnama 
Ex.P.3, 
insurmountably 
stands 
in 
impediment to acceptance of their claim, inasmuch as, being a 
document antedating a period far beyond 30 years, surfacing on the 
record from respondent’s custody, to be considered as proper, by all 
means, in circumstances, nullifies 
the hypothesis of residual 
bequeathal or the sale as they could not possibly acquire a better title 
after the land was once invested in Mst. Sahib Khatoon in pursuance 
thereto.  
 
Though the genuineness of Qabinnama Ex.P.3 has been disputed 
at the bar, however, upon our own examination, in the totality of 
circumstances and admitted nuptial bond between Muhammad Raheem 
and Mst. Sahib Khatoon, we entertain no manner of doubt that the 
disputed land was parted by the former as a dower to her better half as 
far back as on 29.6.1949 on an official stamp paper. Any manipulation, 
given the timeframe, is inconceivable, even by the best of foretellers. 
Consideration of Qabinnama Ex.P.3 in favour of the respondent by the 
Civil  Petition No.78-Q  of 2016 
3
courts below, an exercise found by us, most prudent as well as within 
the remit of law, calls for no interference. Petition fails. Leave declined.   
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Quetta, the 
1st November, 2021 
Azmat/- 
