Expenses on Joint Property Don’t Prove Ownership – Lahore High Court Ruling 2025.
شریک جائیداد میں صرف خرچ یا تعمیرات ملکیت کا ثبوت نہیں — لاہور ہائیکورٹ
کیس کا پس منظر
یہ مقدمہ شریک جائیداد سے متعلق تھا جس میں فریقین نے زمین پر قبضہ اور ملکیت کے دعوے دائر کیے۔ اپیل کنندہ مالک عبدالروف نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ اسے اپنی والد کی جانب سے زمین کا تحفہ دیا گیا اور اس نے اسی پر 45 سال سے زائد عرصے تک قبضہ برقرار رکھا۔ فریق مخالف مالک عبدالرازق نے دعویٰ کیا کہ اپیل کنندہ کی طرف سے پیش کردہ Gift Deed یا قبضہ غیر قانونی یا مشکوک ہے اور اس پر ملکیت کا دعویٰ قائم نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
عدالت کا مؤقف
لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے واضح کیا کہ اگر کوئی شریک جائیداد پر خود سے خرچ کرے، تعمیرات کرے یا یوٹیلیٹی بلز ادا کرے تو یہ اقدامات غیر ضروری شمار ہوں گے اور انہیں قانونی یا مالی قدر نہیں دی جائے گی۔ عدالت نے یہ بھی کہا کہ گیس، بجلی، پانی یا دیگر یوٹیلیٹی بلز کی ادائیگی بھی ملکیت یا حصے داری کا ثبوت نہیں بنتی۔
دعویٰ اور مقدمے کی کارروائی
Respondent No.1 نے متعدد دعوے دائر کیے، جن میں declaration، permanent injunction اور partition شامل تھے۔ Consolidated judgment میں Civil Judge, Gujranwala نے اپیل کنندہ کے دعوے کو منظور کیا اور باقی دعوے خارج کر دیے۔ Appellate Court نے اس فیصلے کو الٹ کر اپیل کنندہ کا دعویٰ خارج کر دیا۔ اپیل کنندہ نے اس کے خلاف لاہور ہائیکورٹ میں Revision Petition دائر کی تاکہ Trial Court کا فیصلہ بحال ہو۔
عدالت کا تجزیہ
لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے یہ طے کیا کہ اپیل کنندہ نے زمین پر بڑھتی ہوئی تعمیرات اور قبضے کے ذریعے ملکیت کا واضح اظہار کیا۔ Respondent No.1 کو gift deed اور قبضہ کی معلومات موجود تھیں۔ Local Commission اور دیگر دستاویزات نے بھی ثابت کیا کہ اپیل کنندہ کا قبضہ درست اور قانونی تھا۔ عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ صرف اخراجات یا بلز کی بنیاد پر ملکیت کا دعویٰ قابل قبول نہیں ہے۔
قانونی اصول
عدالت نے یہ اصول قائم کیا کہ مشترکہ جائیداد میں کسی شریک کا اپنی مرضی سے خرچ یا تعمیرات کرنا مالکیت یا حصے داری کا ثبوت نہیں بنتا۔ ملکیت کے ثبوت کے لیے تحریری معاہدہ، Gift Deed یا قانونی رجسٹریشن ضروری ہے۔ قبضہ اور طویل عرصے کی ملکیت کے واضح اشارے اہمیت رکھتے ہیں بشرطیکہ قانونی طریقہ کار کے مطابق ہوں۔
نتیجہ
لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے Trial Court کا فیصلہ بحال کیا اور اپیل کنندہ کے خلاف Appellate Court کے فیصلے کو مسترد کر دیا۔ عدالت نے واضح کر دیا کہ صرف خرچ یا یوٹیلیٹی بلز کی بنیاد پر شریک جائیداد میں ملکیت کا دعویٰ قائم نہیں ہو سکتا۔
لاہور ہائیکورٹ
نے ایک اہم مقدمہ (Civil Revision No. 2363/2012: Malik Abdul Rauf vs. Malik Abdul Razzaq etc.) میں یہ اصول طے کیا ہے کہ اگر کوئی شریک جائیداد
۔(co-owner) مشترکہ جائیداد پر خود سے خرچ کرتا ہے یا تعمیرات کرتا ہے، تو وہ خرچ "غیر ضروری" شمار ہو گا، اور اسے قانونی طور پر کوئی اہمیت یا مالی قدر نہیں دی جائے گی۔
عدالت نے واضح طور پر کہا کہ:
> "اگر کوئی فریق مشترکہ جائیداد پر خرچ کرتا یا تعمیرات و غیرہ کی نسبت حق جتاتا ہے تو یہ خرچ غیر ضروری، اس کی اپنی مرضی سے کیا گیا تصور ہو گا اور نہ ہی اس کی کوئی قانونی حیثیت یا ویلو تصور ہو گی۔"
اس کے ساتھ ساتھ عدالت نے یہ بھی قرار دیا کہ:
> "یوٹیلیٹی بلز، جیسے گیس، بجلی یا پانی کی ادائیگی بھی جائیداد میں ملکیت کا ثبوت نہیں بنتی۔"
قانونی اہمیت:
یہ فیصلہ ان ہزاروں مقدمات کے لیے راہنمائی فراہم کرتا ہے جہاں ایک شریک جائیداد یہ دعویٰ کرتا ہے کہ اس نے پراپرٹی پر خرچ کیا ہے، لہٰذا وہ مکمل یا جزوی ملکیت کا حق دار ہے۔ عدالت نے اس مفروضے کو رد کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ جب تک باضابطہ طور پر کوئی تحریری معاہدہ یا قانونی انتقال ملکیت نہ ہو، محض اخراجات یا بلز کی بنیاد پر ملکیت کا دعویٰ قابل قبول نہیں
Must read judgement
Form No.HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Civil Revision No. 2363 of 2012.
Malik Abdul Rauf. v. Malik Abdul Razzaq (deceased) through L.Rs., etc.
S.No. of order/
proceeding
Date of order/
proceeding
Order with signature of Judge, and that of
parties or counsel, where necessary
26.02.2025. Mr. Naveed Shehryar Sheikh, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. Shahid Mehmood Minhas, Advocate for
respondent No.1 (i to v) & 7.
Rana Shamshad Khan, Additional Advocate
General for respondent No.2 & 3.
Mr. Aurangzeb Mirza, Advocate for respondent
No.4.
Mr. Javed Iqbal Malik, Advocate for respondent
No.5, 6 (i to v),
Nemo for respondents No.8 to 15.
Succinctly, respondent No.1 filed multiple
suits against the petitioner viz. for declaration
alongwith permanent as well as mandatory
injunction, on 19.11.1999; for partition alongwith
permanent as well as mandatory injunction against,
on 12.02.2000; for declaration alongwith permanent
injunction, on 23.12.2000 whereas the petitioner filed
suit for declaration alongwith permanent injunction
against respondent No.1, on 07.09.2001. In addition
thereto, one Fazal Kareem also filed a suit for
declaration against the petitioner, on 03.11.2001. All
the five suits were consolidated and the learned Civil
Judge, Gujranwala (“learned Trial Court”), vide
consolidated judgment & decree, dated 08.06.2010,
while decreeing the suit filed by the petitioner,
dismissed the remaining four suits. Being aggrieved
of the judgment and decree passed in the suit, filed
by the petitioner, respondent No.1 filed an appeal
which was accepted by the learned Additional
District Judge, Gujranwala (“learned Appellate
Court”) through judgment & decree, dated
14.07.2012 and while reversing the findings of the
learned Trial Court, the suit filed by the petitioner
was dismissed. Being dissatisfied with the judgment
and decree, passed by the learned Appellate Court,
the petitioner has filed this revision petition.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that though consolidated judgment can be challenged
through one appeal but attachment of decrees in all
suits is inevitable and if an appellant fails to append
the decrees in all the suits, decided through
consolidated judgment, the appeal can only be treated
in relation to the decree appended therewith; that
though the petitioner filed application before the
Appellate Court for dismissal of the appeal, filed by
respondent No.1, being hit by the principle of res
judicata but without deciding the fate of the said
application, the Appellate Court proceeded to decide
the main suit; that though father of the petitioner
(donor) remained alive for six years after making gift
in favour of the petitioner but he did not challenge
the same before any forum, thus respondent No.1 was
debarred to challenge the same in view of principle
of spes-successionis; that non-challenging of the gift
mutation by other legal heirs of Abdul Rasheed also
affirms execution of a valid gift by the donor in
favour of the petitioner; that when the petitioner
established his possession over the suit land for more
than forty five years, the Appellate Court could not
upset the well-reasoned judgment passed by the
learned Civil Judge; that admission on the part of the
witnesses, produced by respondent No.1 that the
petitioner, after getting site plan sanctioned, raised
construction at the site, affirms that respondent No.1
was under notice of the gift; that completion of
construction work at the site was also a notice to the
proceeding
Order with signature of Judge, and that of
parties or counsel, where necessary
public-at-large regarding exclusive ownership of the
petitioner, thus, respondent No.1 could not claim that
he was unaware about the gift deed executed in
favour of the petitioner; that during the pendency of
the suit before the learned trial Court a Local
Commission was appointed, who submitted report
verifying the possession of the petitioner over the suit
land; that long standing possession of the petitioner
over the suit land itself was a notice of valid gift in
favour of the petitioner; that when Registry Moharar
verified that certified copy, produced by the
petitioner, was exact copy of the gift deed, the
Appellate Court could not reverse the findings of the
Civil Court; that Riffat Sultana, one of the sisters of
the petitioner, filed conceding Written Statement
before the learned Trial Court and Abdul Sami made
statement before the Local Commission to the effect
that he had no objection if the suit of the petitioner
was decreed; that production of utility bills by the
petitioner also stand proof of the fact that since the
year 1979, he was in possession of the suit property
as donee; that mala-fide on the part of respondent
ding
Date of order/
proceeding
Order with signature of Judge, and that of
parties or counsel, where necessary
No.1 is evident from the fact that he filed suits after
escalation in prices of real estate in the vicinity; that
when the donor transferred the possession in favour
of the petitioner, the gift in favour of the petitioner
stood completed thus the same could not be
interfered by the learned Appellate Court; that nonjudicial approach on the part of the learned Appellate
Court is evinced from the fact that it has not even
touched the points noted by the learned Trial Court in
support of its decision. To fortify his contentions,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
cases reported as Mst. Rabia Gula and others v.
Muhammad Janan and others (2022 SCMR 1009),
Muhammad Siddique (deceased) through L.Rs and
others v. Mst. Noor Bibi (deceased) through L.Rs and
others (2020 SCMR 483), Anjuman-e-Khuddam-ulQur’an, Faisalabad through President Qur’an
Academy v. Lt. Col (R) Najam Hameed and 3 others
(PLD 2020 SC 390), Ghulam Abbas and others v.
Mohammad Shafi through L.Rs and others (2016
SCMR 1403), Abrar Ahmed and another v. Irshad
Ahmed (PLD 2014 SC 331), Muhammad Rustam and
ivil Revision No. 2363 of 2012. Continuous Sheet No.__6___
S.No. of order/
proceeding
Date of order/
proceeding
Order with signature of Judge, and that of
parties or counsel, where necessary
another v. Mst. Makhan Jan and others (2013 SCMR
299), Ghulam Muhammad v. Mian Muhammad and
another (2007 SCMR 231), Mst. Nusrat Zohra v.
Mst. Azhra Bibi and others (PLD 2006 SC 15),
Muhammad Afzal v. Matloob Hussain and others
(PLD 2006 SC 84), Muhammad Sadiq represented
by Muhammad Sarwar and others v. Amir
Muhammad and others (2006 SCMR 702),
Cooperative Model Town Society through Secretary
v. Mst. Asghari Safdar and others (2005 SCMR
931), Shah Muhammad v. Atta Muhammad (2004
SCMR 369), Muhammad Umer v. Muhammad
Qasim and another (1991 SCMR 1232), Mubarak
Ali v. Muhammad Ramzan and others (2004 SCMR
1740), Manzoor Ahmad and 4 others v. Mehrban and
5 others (2002 SCMR 1391), Din Muhammad and
another v. Subedar Muhammad Zaman (2001 SCMR
1992), Muhammad Siddique v. Shah Pasand Khan
and others (1979 SCMR 619), Muhammad Zaman
Khan v. Inzar Gul and others (PLD 1957 (W.P.)
Peshawar 129) and Syed Zahid Hussain through
Special Attorney v. Syed Muhammad Hussain and
others (2006 MLD 1016).
3.
Mr. Shahid Mehmood Minhas, Advocate,
representing respondent No.1(i to v) and 7 states that
dubious character of the acclaimed gift deed is
evident from the fact that in the said document area
of the subject land has been mentioned as 12/13
marlas whereas actually the same is 10-Marlas; that
if the house was gifted to the petitioner as to why he
got attested mutation of inheritance in favour of legal
heirs of Abdul Rasheed in the year 1987; that since
the decrees passed in the suits, filed by respondent
No.1, were inconsequential upon his future rights, he
was under no compulsion to challenge them, hence,
the principle of res judicata was not applicable to the
appeal filed by respondent No.1 and that nonproduction of the original gift deed by the petitioner
before the learned Trial Court creates serious doubts
about its veracity.
4.
Mr. Aurangzeb Mirza, Advocate, representing
respondents No.4, submits that when the petitioner
failed to prove execution of a valid gift in his favour