IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Civil Appeal Nos1520, 1521 & 1522 of 2016 
(Against judgment dated 20.10.2015 passed by Lahore 
High Court Lahore passed in C. R. No.2704 of 2004 
and connected C.Rs.) 
 
Shabla & others 
(in C.A. No.1520 of 2016) 
Roshan Khan & others 
(in C.A. No.1521 of 2016) 
Muhammad Sher & others 
(in C.A. No.1522 of 2016) 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Mst. Jahan Afroz Khilat & others 
(in C.A. No.1520 to 1522  of 2016) 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Malik Ejaz Hussain Gorchha, ASC 
 
(in C.A. No.1520 & 1521 of 2016) 
 
Malik Ghulam Mustafa Kandwal, ASC 
 
(in C.A. No.1522 of 2016) 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
For Respondent No.1: 
Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, ASC 
 
Ch. Ali Muhammad, ASC 
 
Mr. M. Ozair Chughtai, AOR 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
13.11.2019 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J. Ms. Jahan Afroz Khilat, 
respondent, inherited from her father’s estate, as a minor, land 
measuring 2722-Kanal 12 Marla; after her marriage, she settled in 
the United States, where she continued to receive her share of 
produce; she returned in the year 1989 to learn that her entire 
share stood mutated in favour of his nephew Meesam Mehdi Raza 
Khan, way back on 10.8.1968, through the good offices of his father 
Ameer Ali Raza Hayat Khan, her real brother. It is in evidence that 
the transferee was aged about 1 ½ year at the time of mutation. 
Through various transactions, the land passed on different hands, 
each arrayed as defendant in the suit, dismissed by the learned trial 
Judge vide judgment and decree dated 24.11.2011. The Appellate 
Court reversed the findings vide judgment and decree dated 
Civil Appeal Nos1520, 1521 & 1522 of 2016 
2
14.09.2004, upheld by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of Lahore High 
Court vide consolidated judgment dated 20.10.2015, vires whereof 
are being assailed through the captioned appeals by leave of the 
Court; bound by a common thread, these are being decided through 
this single judgment.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellants, in a unison, 
contend that the appellants are bonafide purchasers with 
consideration and, thus, the learned trial Court had rightly 
dismissed the suit and there was no occasion for the learned 
Appellate Court as well the learned Judge-in-Chamber to take a 
contra view; that the suit was not maintainable, as according to 
them, admittedly the plaintiff/respondent was not in possession of 
the suit land, otherwise doomed for being hopelessly barred by time. 
The bottom line is that the land was consciously alienated by the 
family, respondent’s being on board in each transaction. Reference 
to the entire estate by the High Court is lastly pressed into service to 
argue that the findings returned by the High Court, transcend far 
beyond the original decree and, thus, intervention by this Court 
would be most called for. Learned counsel for the respondents has 
defended the impugned judgment on the ground that the impugned 
transaction was nothing but a farce inasmuch as the respondent 
was minor at the time when impugned mutation was purportedly 
transacted; he has relied upon the doctrine of caveat emptor to 
argue that the appellants could not defend their title in the face of a 
transaction, void ab initio. Period of limitation could not stand in 
impediment to respondents’ claim, concluded the learned counsel. 
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Competing claims, notwithstanding, respondent’s title 
in her father’s estate to the extent of 2722-Kanal 12-Marla, as a 
minor daughter is a common ground; being a female, in a Muslim 
household, it was her due, conferred by Divine Law, recognized by 
the law of the land; it is so ordained in Sura Al-Nisa(4/10), 
reproduced below 
 ۖ ْمُﻛِدَﻻْوَأ ﻲِﻓ ُﱠ� ُمُﻛﯾِﺻوُﯾ
 ۚ ِنْﯾَﯾَﺛْﻧُْﻷا ِّظَﺣ ُلْﺛِﻣ ِرَﻛﱠذﻠِﻟ
 ِنْﯾَﺗَﻧْﺛا َقْوَﻓ ًءﺎَﺳِﻧ ﱠنُﻛ ْنِﺈَﻓ
 ْنِإَو ۖ َكَرَﺗ ﺎَﻣ ﺎَﺛُﻠُﺛ ﱠنُﮭَﻠَﻓ
ۚ ُفْﺻِّﻧﻟا ﺎَﮭَﻠَﻓ ًةَدِﺣاَو ْتَﻧﺎَﻛ 
  
  
 � � ےر� � (�ارو �) د�وا ىر� � �ا
 � �ا� � ں�� ود � � �� � � �د
ود (� ود) ں� � ں�� ف� �ا � ،�  �از �
 ہو �ا روا ،� � �� ود � �� سا � � نا �
� �دآ � � سا � � �ا  
Civil Appeal Nos1520, 1521 & 1522 of 2016 
3
Given the preponderance of conferment, such a right, rooted into 
Personal Law, has to be jealously guarded, therefore, a heavy onus 
is cast upon the claimant to demonstrate that a female legatee had 
parted with her entitlement by choice and for considerations, 
consciously, without duress or uncalled for persuasions, by those 
placed qua her in advantageous positions. It is not merely an 
invasion into proprietary rights of a woman but a criminal offence 
punishable under section 498-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 
(Act XLV of 1860) as well. In the present case, any one with ordinary 
prudence, would fail to find any rational, prompting a minor girl 
hardly of 13 years of age to alienate a considerable chunk of land in 
favour of her minor nephew aged less than two years; she was 
otherwise incompetent under the law to mutate the land; it sans 
solemnity as well. A momentary glance of the entry, exposes the 
deceit inherent in the mutation, reproduced for convenience of 
reference 
‘ر � �ا � ن� � ن� ت� �ہ� ى� � �  �  �ا �ارا �� �ا
۔� ىد � � � م� � � ��ِ���ر جرد �او ا � ر� � � �’ 
 
It is recorded in flagrant violation of procedure, provided under 
section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 (XVII of 
1967). There is none except Ameer Ali Raza Hayat Khan to 
command transfer of land in favour of his own son to his benefit 
and to the detriment of the respondent, no other than his real minor 
sister; flux of time can neither validate the transaction nor wash 
away the repugnance thereof. Argument that much water has flown 
under the bridge is entirely beside the mark. Limitation never run 
against fraud, more so in the matters involving inheritance rights of 
a female; a view consistently taken by this Court in cases reported 
as Fazal Ellahi deceased through legal heirs Vs. Mst. Zainab Bi (2019 
SCMR 1930), Khan Muhammad through LRs & others Vs. Mst. 
Khatoon Bibi & others (2017 SCMR 1476), Mahmood Khan Vs. Syed 
Khalid Hussain Shah (2015 SCMR 869), Mst. Gohar Khanum Vs. 
Mst. Jamila Jan (2014 SCMR 801), Rehmat Ullah & others Vs. Saleh 
Khan & others (2007 SCMR 729), Arshad Khan Vs. Resham Jan and 
others (2005 SCMR 1859) and Ghulam Ali & 2 other Vs. Mst. Ghulam 
Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1).  
 
Reference to period of limitation is otherwise misplaced; it is 
respondent’s case, in line with the pleadings and re-affirmed in the 
Civil Appeal Nos1520, 1521 & 1522 of 2016 
4
witness-box, that she kept on receiving her share of produce while 
being in the United States wherefrom she returned in the year 1989 
and learnt about the impugned mutation as late as in the year 1991 
soon whereafter she instituted the suit.  
 
Similarly argument that the appellants being innocent buyers 
with considerations should not suffer from the consequences of a 
wrong done upon the respondent by her own kith and kin, though 
evokes sympathy, nonetheless, does not hold water in law. Doctrine 
of ‘caveat emptor’ is a well entrenched principle in our 
jurisprudence; it requires the buyer to be vigilant and careful as he 
cannot acquire a better title; as observed above, a glance over the 
mutation would have inescapably exposed the flaw patent therein, 
putting the potential buyers at caution.  
 
Non-maintainability of the suit on the plea of respondent’s 
being out of possession is an argument that too carries no weight; 
respondent being a co-sharer in the estate is deemed to be in 
possession in each inch thereof till the land is partitioned according 
the respective shares. 
 
Typographical error in description of land in terms of its 
volume in the High Court’s judgment does not carry vitiative impact 
inasmuch as  the suit land is clearly described in the head note of 
the plaint as measuring 2722 Kanal 12-Marla and the suit was 
decreed in accordance therewith; effects of the error do not impinge 
beyond the suit land. View taken by the High Court being well 
within the remit of law calls for no interference. Appeals fail. 
Dismissed.  
      
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
13.11.2019 
Approved for reporting.  
Azmat/-