Muhammad Zuhrab Khan Vs Falak Nawab

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

MINGORA BENCH (DAR-UL-QAZA), SWAT

(Judicial Department) C.R No. 360-M/2019 Muhammad Zuhrab Khan ...................... (Petitioner) vs Falak Nawab & 11 others ...................... (Respondents) Present: Muhammad Imran Khan, AHC for the petitioner.

Mr. Yousaf Ali, AHC for the respondents.

Date of hearing: 29.01.2026

JUDGMENT

SALAH-UD-DIN, J.- By way of filing instant civil revision petition filed U/S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (“C.P.C”), the petitioner, Muhammad Zuhrab Khan, has challenged the validity, legality & jurisdictional error in relation to impugned judgment & decree, dated 16.05.2019, of the learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi, Khwaza Khela, District Swat, vide which, his appeal bearing No.10/13 of 2018 was dismissed and upheld the judgment & decree, dated 05.01.2018, of the learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi-II, Khwazakhela, District Swat, as to the dismissal of civil suit No.30/1 of 2014 of the appellant.

Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

2.Arguments heard and record gone

through with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

3.Perusal of record would demonstrate that Muhammad Zohrab Khan, the plaintiff, (“petitioner herein”), filed a civil suit bearing No.30/1 of 2014 against Falak Nawab & 11 others, the defendants, (“respondents herein”), before the learned trial Court for seeking declaration-cum- perpetual injunction coupled with cancelation of Tamleek vide mutation No.640, dated 15.08.2005, in favour of the respondents No.1 to 8 as well as subsequent mutation No.1215, dated 23.07.2014, by the respondents No.5 to 8 in favour of the respondents No.9 to 12 and possession as a consequential relief to the extent of his Shari shares in the suit property fully detailed in the headnote of the plaint. It was averred in the plaint that the petitioner and respondents No. 1 to 8 are, inter-se, real brothers and sisters, and lawful heirs of Minhaj Khan, their predecessor-in-interest, however, their mothers are separate. Upon the demise of the said Minhaj Khan, the suit property was inherited to the petitioner and respondents Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

No.1 to 8, however, the respondents No. 1 to 8, with their mala fide intention so as to deprive the petitioner from his lawful ownership and Shari share in the suit property, collusively made the gift mutation No.640, dated 15.08.2005, purportedly executed by Minhaj Khan in their favour and also, the respondents No.5 to 8 fraudulently transferred a portion of suit land in favour of the respondents No.9 to12 via Mutation No.1215 dated 23.07.2014, which was duly incorporated in the revenue record as alleged to have been sold, however, the amount of its price has been fraudulently shown lesser than its actual price, i.e., Rs.3,780,000/- instead of Rs.7,040,000/-, which had been paid to the vendors/respondents No.5 to 8. The petitioner also sought cancellation of the aforesaid gift mutation as well as the subsequent sale mutation by praying that the same being wrong, illegal, void ab-initio, without lawful authority and based on mutual collusion of the respondents as the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 8 being an old feeble person suffering from multiple serious illnesses and he was solely in the control of the respondents No.1 to 4, be declared ineffective upon his rights.

Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

4.In response to the summons, the

respondents No.1, 4 to 12 turned up before the learned trial Court and contested the suit by submitting their joint written statement, whereby they denied the claim of the petitioner through raising various legal and factual objections. It was averred in their written statement that the suit property except survey No.848, 919, 958, 959, 1960, 1102, 853, 1478 & 1479 and a residential house, rest of the suit property is the legacy of Minhaj Khan, in which, the petitioner is entitled for receiving his Shari share, whereas, the property mentioned above had been validly transferred by Minhaj Khan to the respondents No.1 to 8 in his life time via gift mutation referred to above after fulfilling of all the legal requirements. However, the respondents did not mention any detail as to the offer and acceptance in relation to gifting the suit property to the respondents No.1 to 8 for some special reason being prerequisites of a valid gift.

5.Issues were framed and both the

parties led their respective evidence. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court vide judgment & decree, Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

dated 05.01.2018, partially dismissed the suit of the petitioner to the extent of property transferred to the respondents via Tamleek/gift mutation, No.640, dated 15.08.2005, as well as the subsequent mutation No.1215, dated 23.07.2014, whereas, he was only entitled in the rest of the suit property upto his Shari share being declared it the legacy of Minhaj Khan, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and the respondents No.1 to 8.

Aggrieved whereof, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court, however, the same was dismissed vide impugned judgment & decree, dated 16.05.2019. It obliged the petitioner to approach this Court for getting appropriate reliefs through filing instant civil revision petition u/s.115, C.P.C.

6.A careful and deep root analysis of the record reveals that a decisive controversial question requiring adjudication by this Court is as to whether the alleged Gift mutation No.640, dated 15.08.2005, and subsequent mutation No.1215, dated 23.07.2014, have been duly proved by the respondents in accordance with law through firm, cogent, cohesive, reliable, believable and Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

worth credence evidence, thereby they transferred major portion of the suit property in their names under the garb of gift.

7.The respondents, being beneficiary of the alleged gift, have to prove the legality, validity and the fulfilment of all requisite ingredients provided there under the law for a valid gift while ostensibly making the gift in their favour by Minhaj Khan, their predecessor-in-interest, in his life time. In this regard, the respondent No.4, who is also attorney for the respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 to 8, has recorded his examination-in-chief as DW1. He deposed in his examination-in-chief that late Minhaj has gifted the suit property bearing survey Nos.848, 853, 919, 958 to 960, 1102, to the respondents No.1 to 4 and survey Nos.1478 & 1479 to the respondents No.5 to 8, in his life time via gift mutation No.640, dated 15.08.2005. In the garb of said mutation, the respondents No.5 to 8 sold out their shares to Khwaja Khan etc via mutation No.1215, dated 28.07.2014, and rest of the property left to the parties after the death of Minhaj Khan, is the legacy. However, there is no single word narrated by DW1 as regard to the offer Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

and acceptance except the delivery of possession, which are the essential ingredients to be proved for a valid gift either oral or written, so, these essential ingredients are not only missing here in his examination-in-chief but in their written statement as well. He during the course of his cross- examination candidly admitted the fact that the gift mutation No.640 has neither been executed in his presence nor it was signed/thumb impressed by the donor and its witnesses before him. Relevant part whereof is reproduced for ease reference as follows:

640’’ہی درتس ےہ ہک ریمے روربو ہن کیلمت ربمن وہاےہ ہن کیلمت ددنہہ شیپ وہاےہ اور ہن وگااہن شیپ ‘‘وہےئںیہ۔

8.DW2, Bahre Anosh, deposed in his

examination-in-chief that he is marginal witness of mutation No.640, dated 15.08.2005, vide which, late Minhaj has gifted the property mentioned with survey numbers in the aforesaid mutation to the respondents No.1 to 4, in his presence. He during his cross-examination admitted it correct that the whole disputed property is legacy of the predecessor-in-interest of the parties and where, Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

there is no purchased property of the sons of the donor. He further deposed in his cross-examination that Minhaj had become very weak and feeble for about 6/7 months prior his death during his last period of age. Similarly, DW3 in his examination- in-chief stated that he is marginal witness of mutation No.640, dated 15.08.2005, thereby late Minhaj Khan has gifted a portion of his property reflected with survey numbers in the aforesaid mutation to the respondents. He during the course of his cross-examination deposed that at the relevant time of execution and attestation of gift mutation, the age of donor was about 65/70 years.

He further deposed that the predecessor-in-interest of the parties was become very week and feeble at the last stage of his life before death. However, both these witnesses did not utter a single word as to the “offer” and “acceptance” of the alleged gift.

This Court in Akbar Shah’s case, has held that the execution of the gift deed, alienation of the property, the factum of gift and completion of essential ingredients were the basic steps, which were required to be proved by the petitioners/ defendants.1

2025 CLC 1537, Akbar Shah and others v. Ayub Khan and others.

Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

9.Under the settled principles of law as well as the injunctions of Shariah governing Hiba, the validity and completion of a gift is contingent upon the strict fulfillment of three essential ingredients, i.e., (i) a clear, unequivocal and voluntary offer (Ijab) by the donor;

(ii)acceptance (Qabool) thereof by the donee; and

(iii)delivery of possession (Qabza) in pursuance of such offer and acceptance. These essential requirements are cumulative and mandatory in nature and in absence of any one of these renders the alleged gift void, incomplete and without legal sanctity. Similarly, it is a fundamental requirement of a valid gift (Hiba) that at the time of making the gift, the donor must be of a sound mind, capable of understanding the nature, character, and legal consequences of the transaction and must act on his own free will without any element of coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation or incapacity.

The mental competence and volition of the donor at the relevant time constitute the very foundation of a lawful gift. In the present case, respondents/ defendants asserting title over the suit property on the basis of the alleged gift mutation, squarely fall on them the burden to affirmatively establish Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

through reliable, cogent and confidence inspiring evidence, not only the essential ingredients of offer, acceptance and delivery of possession but also that at the relevant time, the donor was mentally of sound mind, fully conscious of his act, and capable of understanding the implications of gifting his property to his four sons of his youngest wife with no any minute detail while depriving the petitioner, who is also his real son from his first wife. A meticulous scrutiny of the record, however, reveals that the respondents have utterly failed to discharge this onus and there is no an iota of evidence to establish that the alleged donor, Minhaj Khan, made a clear and conscious offer of gift in favour of the respondents in their presence, nor is there any material to establish that such offer was duly accepted by them. In Mst. Aksar Jan’s case, Hon’ble apex Court has ruled that the inheritance shares in the estate left by a Muslim is stipulated in the Holy Qur'an and a deceased's legal heirs become owners on his/her death.

Unfortunately, and all too often, females continue to be deprived of their inheritance by employing various nefarious tactics, bogus documentation, fraudulent statements with the Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

facilitation of Revenue department officials and some advocates. The courts too at times are not vigilant enough to protect inheritance rights, particularly of females and other vulnerable members of society. The practice of depriving females of their inheritance must be put a stop to, and those who do so must be made to pay substantial costs and not be permitted to benefit from procedural technicalities.2

10.Apart from the above, the record also reflects that the donor was an illiterate and aged person, who was unable to understand the consequences of alleged gift at the relevant time.

In such circumstances, the burden upon the beneficiaries of the transaction becomes even heavier to prove that at the relevant time, the donor was of sound mind, fully conscious of the nature and consequences of the alleged gift.

Yet, the respondents produced no such reliable evidence to believe that at the relevant time, the donor was of sound mind and able to understand the consequences of gift allegedly made in favour of the respondents No.1 to 8, his youngest wife, 2025 SCMR 88, Mst. Aksar Jan and others v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others.

Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

her sons and daughters with his own free will without using any duress, force or coercion. In Farzana Zia’s case, Hon’ble apex Court has held that the donor should be of sound mind and understand the legal implications of making the gift, free from any coercion, duress, or undue influence. Under the Muslim Law, the constituents of a valid gift are tender, acceptance, and possession of property.3

11.One another important aspect of

instant case, which cannot be lost sight of is that the donor has four sons and three daughters (the respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 to 8) from his youngest wife, whereas, one son (the petitioner) from his first wife and one daughter from his second wife, however, seemingly, there is no rhyme or reason on the record to divulge why the donor deprived his one real son, i.e., the petitioner from his property and why he gifted a major portion of his landed property to his youngest wife and her seven children. A gift emanates from love and affection and sometime it is quid pro quo personal services rendered by the donees to the 2024 SCMR 916, Mst. Farzana Zia and others v. Mst. Saadia Andaleeb and others.

Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

donor but in the present case there is no such plea adopted by the donees/respondents. Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Hidayat Khan’s case, has observed that the petitioner(s) could not plead and prove as to which were the circumstances and incidents that the propositus despite being a Muslim proceeded to deprive his legal heirs/sons and gifted out his property to the present petitioner(s)/grandsons/sons of Murad Khan. Pleading and proving of such facts was necessary and sine qua non, which are missing in the instant case.4

12.Significantly, Bachan Nawab (DW-1), who also acts as special attorney for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 to 8, has candidly admitted during his cross-examination that alleged gift mutation bearing No.640, dated 15.08.2005 was neither effected in his presence, nor it was thumb impressed or signed by the donor as well as the marginal witnesses. This categorical admission by the respondent No.4 (DW1) strikes at the root of the case of respondents and unmistakably indicates that no lawful proceedings relating to the alleged gift mutation including offer, acceptance and the PLD 2005 SC 502, Hidayat Khan and others v. Mst. Nasreen and others.

Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

delivery of possession were proved to have been taken place in accordance with law. As such, the respondents have been miserably failed to establish the essential ingredients of a valid gift (Hiba) as provided there under the law, as well as the mental competence and conscious volition of the donor at the relevant time. Consequently, the alleged gift mutation No.640, dated 15.08.2005, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is devoid of any legal effect. In this regard, wisdom can be drawn from the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court as laid down in Muhammad Nawaz’s case that the onus to establish the factum and ingredients of the gift is on the beneficiary who claims such gift and which is denied or challenged by the other legal heirs.5

In Mst. Sadia’s case, Hon’ble Supreme

Court of Pakistan has observed that indeed, if a document in the form of memorandum of gift has been executed between the parties (donor and donee) as an acknowledgment of past transaction of oral gift, its non-registration will not have much bearing as regards its authenticity or validity, but the other important thing is the proof of fulfillment of three 2020 SCMR 276, Muhammad Srawar v. Mumtaz Bibi and others Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

conditions of a valid gift "offer", "acceptance" and "delivery of possession".6

In Peer Baksh’s case, Hon’ble apex

Court has reiterated the aforesaid view that the petitioner was under an obligation to establish the ingredients of the gift claimed by him under the impugned mutations. However, no particulars whatsoever of the time, date, place and witnesses of the declaration of the gift made by Ghulam Muhammad deceased in favour of the petitioner have been provided in his pleadings nor any evidence could be produced by him in this behalf.

This is fatal to the petitioner's plea. 7

13.It is equally well settled that a mere mutation entry in the revenue record, by itself, neither creates nor extinguishes title unless it is supported by proof of a validly effected gift fulfilling all legal and Shariah prerequisites.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Mst. Jehan Bano’s case, has held that mutation by itself does not create title and it carries a rebuttable presumption.8 2016 SCMR 662, Mst. Saadia v. Mst. Gul Bibi 2016 SCMR 1417, Peer Baksh through L.Rs and others v. Mst. Khanzadi and others 2024 SCMR 1096, Mst. Jehan Bano and others v. Mehraban Shah and others.

Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

In Mst. Sadiqan Begum’s case, High

Court of Lahore, has held that the oral transaction of transfer of immovable property, be it sale, gift/tamleek, surrender or will etc. has to be proved separate from its incorporation/attestation in revenue record by way of sanctioning of the mutation since a mutation cannot by itself be considered a document of title.9

14.It appears clear from crystal from perusal of record that the petitioner is the step paternal brother of the respondents No.1 to 4, 6 to 8 and the step son of the respondent No.5, Mst. Khkule, while the donor, a real father of the petitioner was residing there with the respondents No.1 to 8, as such, the donor was fully under their immediate influence and the alleged gift mutation has not been proved to have been made by the donor independently with his sound mind, free of any duress or coercion by understanding all its legal implications. Depriving the petitioner and other legal heirs of the donor, Minhaj Khan, in the garb of aforesaid alleged gift mutation would cause miscarriage of justice as well as violate the 2025 CLC 1158, Mst. Sadiqan Begum v. Muhammad Siddique.

Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

provision of law and Shariah. As such, the alleged gift mutation No.640, dated 15.08.2005, on its very face is illegal and against the Shariah, liable to cancellation.

15.As far as the subsequent mutation No.1215, dated 23.07.2014, is concerned, which has no legal base as stated above, the respondents have not been able to substantiate the gift mutation No.640, dated 15.06.2005, so, any subsequent mutation(s) or transaction(s) erected or built thereupon would automatically lose its legal sanctity and are liable to be declared void ab-initio having being nullity in the eyes of law. Besides, the sale mutation No.1215, dated 23.07.2014 is seemingly the result of fraud apparently proved on the face of record as the said mutation having mentions the amount of sale consideration as Rs.3,780,000/- instead of its actual price of sale consideration, i.e., Rs.7,040,000/-, which too, has not been grabbed by the respondents No.1 to 4 by not paying it to the respondents No.5 to 8, via committing fraud even with their real mother and sisters. In this regard, Bacha Dil Khan, (DW4), attorney of the respondents No.9 to 12, deposed in his cross-examination that sale consideration of Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

mutation No.1215 was done on Rs.7,040,000/-, and which fact was in his due knowledge. Relevant part of his statement is reproduced as follows:

وعبض رتس الھک1215’’دماعمہیلع ےن اِاقتنل ربمن ‘‘اچسیلزہارروےپایکےہسجاکےھجمملعےہ۔

Similarly, Hazrat Umar, DW6, who is shown to have a marginal witness of the mutation No.1215, dated 23.07.2014, self-stated in his cross-examination that at the time of attestation of aforesaid mutation, the Revenue Official duly apprised the respondents No.6 to 8 of the fact that the sale consideration was to be received by their brothers, upon which, they showed their willingness. Relevant part whereof is reproduced as follows:

’’ازوخداہک ہک ہمکحم امل ےک امن ےدنئے ےن اہی ںی ہی واحض ایک اھت ہک ٓاپ یک اجدیئاد رفوتخ وہریہ ےہ اور ےسیپ ٓاپ ےک ربادران ےگنیل سج رپ دماعاہیلعن ‘‘ےنراضدنمیاظرہیکیھت۔8ات6ربمن

16.During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents also raised an objection that the learned two Courts below have Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

non-suited the petitioner through recording its concurrent findings, which cannot be legally disturbed or upset by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C., as thereunder, the powers of revisional Court are very limited. No doubt, this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C., acts with utmost prudence, restraint, judicial circumspection and does not ordinarily upset the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below. However, when the Court finds that the concurrent findings recorded by the learned fora below are suffering from non-reading or misreading of material evidence and the result of misconception of law or exercised jurisdiction illegally not vested to them or have drawn wrong conclusions, thereby rendering the findings perverse and unsustainable, then, this Court would be fully justified in invoking its revisional jurisdiction to correct the illegality and obviate the miscarriage of justice. In this context, Hon’ble apex Court has elucidated its exhaustive view in Habib-ur-Rehman’s case that if the concurrent findings recorded by the lower fora Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

are found to be in violation of the law, or based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, they cannot be treated as so sacrosanct or sanctified that they cannot be reversed by the High Court in its revisional or constitutional jurisdiction or in a second appeal, as a corrective measure, come what may. Where glaring errors, non-reading or misreading of evidence, or any legal and jurisdictional issues arise, the stumbling block of the doctrine of concurrent findings cannot shield flawed or erroneous decisions. Undoubtedly, the Trial Court possesses the distinctive position to adjudge the trustworthiness of witnesses and the cumulative effect of evidence led in the lis. The Appellate Court accords deference to such findings, which are not overturned unless found erroneous or defective. It is also not within the domain or function of the Appellate Court and/or the High Court to re-weigh or re-interpret the evidence, but they can examine whether the impugned judgment or order attains the benchmark of an unflawed judgment; and whether it is in consonance with the law and evidence and free from unjust and unfair errors Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

apparent on the face of record, and if the concurrent findings are found to be in violation of law or based on flagrant and obvious defects floating on the surface of the record, then it can be reversed as a corrective measure without undue regard to the fact that the matter culminated in concurrent findings. This reminds us of the renowned idiom "to err is human," which suggests that making mistakes is a natural part of being human. The purpose of providing the right of appeal or revision is to test and comprehend the wholeness, soundness, and integrity of the judgment or order under challenge, and not to ingenuously or straightforwardly affirm it merely because it rests on concurrent findings, unless it satisfies, the acid test of being in accordance with the applicable law and devoid of misreading or non- reading of evidence. 10

In Ahmed Ali Talpur’s case, Hon’ble apex Court has ruled that where glaring errors, non-reading or misreading of evidence, or any 2025 SCMR 1262, Habib-ur-Rehman and others v. Abdul Karim (deceased) through L.Rs and others.

Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

legal and jurisdictional issues arise, the stumbling block of the doctrine of concurrent findings cannot shield flawed and erroneous decisions from correction.11

This Court too, in Abdul Manan’s

case has held that the findings of the learned Courts below are based on misreading and non- reading of the record, as such, the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below are not only against the law but also against the facts on the record, which could not sustain in view of the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases of "Nazim ud Din and others v. Sh. Zia ul Qamar and others" (2016 SCMR 24) and "Noor Muhammad and others v.

Mst. Azmat-e-Bibi" (2012 SCMR 1373) that erroneous concurrent findings based on misreading and non-reading of evidence are no longer sacrosanct from interference while invoking revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the instant petition stands allowed, consequently, the judgments and decrees of both 2025 SCMR 302, Ahmed Ali Talpur v. Sub-Registrar Latifabad Hyderabad and others.

Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

the Courts below are set-aside and the suit filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs is hereby decreed in their favour.12

17.In view of what has been discussed above, it is held that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below are the result of non-reading and misreading of evidence on record as well as misinterpretation of the law on the subject; thus, the same are untenable in the eyes of law and warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

18.Resultantly, the instant Civil Revision Petition is hereby allowed. The concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below, through the impugned judgments and decrees, are set aside for having been rendered in disregard of the settled principles of law and the evidence available on record. Thus, suit No.30/1 of 2014 is decreed in favour of the petitioner against the respondents in terms that gift mutation No.640 dated 15.08.2005, along with all other subsequent transactions and mutations emanating therefrom, including the mutation No.1215, dated 23.07.2014, are void 2023 CLC 1839 (Peshawar), Abdul Manan and others v. Bakhti Ali and others.

Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

ab-initio, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect, so, the same are accordingly cancelled.

It is further clarified that the entire suit property, along with any other property inherited to by Minhaj Khan, shall be devolved upon all his legal heirs strictly in accordance with their respective Shari shares as provided under the law.

Announced Dt: 29.01.2026. --Sd--

JUDGE

Bakht Sher Ali/Stenographer (S.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din