Abdul Jabbar sued for declaration, alleging the petitioners had encroached on his share of land by constructing a boundary wall. The issues framed went to the heart of the dispute: maintainability under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act; whether Mutation No.448 was fraudulent and fake for non-fulfilment of the essential ingredients of Hiba (gift); and whether the plaintiff was the absolute owner in peaceful possession of a 1/16 share — 2 rode, 9 pole. The trial court decreed the suit on 29.09.2020; the appellate court affirmed on 27.05.2021; the Balochistan High Court dismissed the revision on 21.09.2022.
In C.P.155-Q/2022, the Supreme Court — Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi authoring, with Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan — dismissed the petition on 15.07.2026 in a judgment approved for reporting, declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three courts below.
The Hiba question deserves attention: a gift under Muslim law requires the donor's declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession — the 'essential ingredients'. A mutation entry that does not reflect those ingredients is paper without substance, and the courts below found Mutation No.448 to be exactly that. Three forums agreed; the Supreme Court saw no reason to disagree.
Concurrent findings are the Supreme Court's red line in civil cases: where trial, appeal and revision speak with one voice on facts, leave is refused almost as a matter of course. Teen adalatein ek baat kahein, to Supreme Court doosri nahi kehti — finality, once earned thrice over, is left alone.