Section 16 : “undue influence” defined
2023 CLD 1025 ISLAMABAD
TANVIR HUSSAIN MANJI VS NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU
25(b)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 16(3)—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Plea bargain—Incidental charges—Scope—Undue influence—Proof—Petitioner accused before National Accountability Bureau (NAB) who entered into plea bargain with NAB but assailed imposition of 15% incidental charges over and above the liability so determined—Validity—National Accountability Bureau had no right to demand such incidental charges either in law or equity—Petitioner while he was deprived of his freedom agreed to the same which indicated use of undue influence—Such use of authority resulted in an unfair advantage over the other—National Accountability Bureau obtained an unfair advantage over the petitioner by extracting an amount from him not otherwise due by using its dominant position over petitioner—“Incidental charges” as part of plea bargain were unconscionable—According to S. 16(3) of Contract Act, 1872, burden of proof that contract was not induced by undue influence was on the person who was in a position to dominate the will of another when he entered into contract with such person and where transaction had appeared to be unconscionable—National Accountability Bureau was unable to explain what incidental charges, if any, were incurred in respect of a plea bargain—Law did not authorize NAB to charge the same and NAB had failed to discharge its burden of proof—Public functionaries were expected to act fairly and justly and could not be allowed to profit from predicament of a person in their custody—High Court condoned delay in invoking Constitutional jurisdiction by petitioner—In absence of law and/or expenses incurred by NAB, the clause of plea bargain whereby petitioner agreed to pay incidental charges was unenforceable for lack of free consent—High Court declared that such clause of plea bargain entered into by petitioner was void to the extent of 15% incidental charges and the same could not be recovered from petitioner—Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
2023 PLD 238 ISLAMABAD
TANVIR HUSSAIN MANJI VS NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU
25(b)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 16(3)—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Plea bargain—Incidental charges—Scope—Undue influence—Proof—Petitioner accused before National Accountability Bureau (NAB) who entered into plea bargain with NAB but assailed imposition of 15% incidental charges over and above the liability so determined—Validity—National Accountability Bureau had no right to demand such incidental charges either in law or equity—Petitioner while he was deprived of his freedom agreed to the same which indicated use of undue influence—Such use of authority resulted in an unfair advantage over the other—National Accountability Bureau obtained an unfair advantage over the petitioner by extracting an amount from him not otherwise due by using its dominant position over petitioner—“Incidental charges” as part of plea bargain were unconscionable—According to section 16 (3) of Contract Act, 1872, burden of proof that contract was not induced by undue influence was on the person who was in a position to dominate the will of another when he entered into contract with such person and where transaction had appeared to be unconscionable—National Accountability Bureau was unable to explain what incidental charges, if any, were incurred in respect of a plea bargain—Law did not authorize NAB to charge the same and NAB had failed to discharge its burden of proof—Public functionaries were expected to act fairly and justly and could not be allowed to profit from predicament of a person in their custody—High Court condoned delay in invoking Constitutional jurisdiction by petitioner—In absence of law and/or expenses incurred by NAB, the clause of plea bargain whereby petitioner agreed to pay incidental charges was unenforceable for lack of free consent—High Court declared that such clause of plea bargain entered into by petitioner was void to the extent of 15% incidental charges and the same could not be recovered from petitioner—Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
2016 YLR 2102 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Raja MUHAMMAD ALTAF KHAN VS SOBIA TABASSUM
16—“Undue influence”—Meaning.
2016 YLR 2102 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Raja MUHAMMAD ALTAF KHAN VS SOBIA TABASSUM
S.5, Sched—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 16, 10 & 11—Suit for jactitation of marriage—Undue influence—Effect—Defendant could not succeed in establishing that any valid marriage was contracted by the plaintiff or she was legally capable of contracting such marriage—Element of undue influence could not be ruled out in the present case—Alleged contract of marriage was result of undue influence—If alleged contract of marriage stood proved even then it was not “valid” and would be deemed to be result of undue influence as plaintiff had denied the same—Shariat Court had rightly decreed the suit of plaintiff while declaring the contract of Nikah as ineffective and inoperative—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2016 PLD 199 SUPREME-COURT
PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through AGM(Trafic), Lahore VS FOUR BROTHERS INTERNATIONAL (PVT) LTD
2(e) & Chap. II [Ss.10 to 30-C]—Agreement, rescission of—Agreement between the parties had the status of a statute and unless it was shown that any term of the agreement was violative of the law, it could not be rescinded by a party.
2016 CLD 1938 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS RAJA TRADERS
Ss. 9 & 10— Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962), S. 33-B—State Bank of Pakistan BPD Circular 29, dated 15.10.2002—Contract Act (IX of 1872) Ss. 13, 14 & 16—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Orders XIV & XV—Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 25—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Leave to defend, refusal of—Concessions claimed under State Bank of Pakistan BPD Circular No.29, dated 15-10-2002—Permissibility—Right to fair trial and equality of citizens—Scope—Settlement of issues or determination of suit on issues of law or issues agreed upon—Disposal of suit at first hearing—Plaintiff-Bank filed present suit for recovery of loan amount; whereas, defendant filed connected suit seeking concessions regarding their outstanding liabilities requiring plaintiff-Bank to sign agreement in terms of decision made by Committee of State Bank of Pakistan under BPD Circular No. 29—Validity—Plaintiff-Bank could be coerced to sign any unilateral agreement, terms of which had never been agreed by Bank, as hit by provisions of Ss. 13, 14 & 16 of Contract Act, 1872—No cause of action against law—Plaintiff in connected suit was not only required to show that not only his rights had been infringed but also that right to seek a relief was in existence—BPD Circular No.29 did not provide right to defendants, unless they met precondition as set out in the said Circular, such as where chances of recovery of loan were ‘negligible’ or unit was considered as sick—Enforcement of BPD Circular No.29 by individual Banks to their respective customers was prerogative of the Banks—Banks were to decide whether debt outstanding against customer was lost debt or recoverable in terms of assets mortgaged with them—Plaintiff-Bank, who was sole decision maker as to recovery of outstanding liability, had never undertook to resolve dispute according to terms of alleged settlement of liabilities under BPD Circular No.29—In the present case, probability of recovery was not negligible, as properties were mortgaged and guarantees were enforceable—Banking Court was required to find out as to whether any question of law and fact was raised which was to be determined and whether allegations made in the plaint would give rise to cause of action or not—Filing of suit by defendant, who otherwise had no cause of action against financial institution, could not be considered to be a guarantee for grant of leave to defend the suit filed by financial institution—Orders XIV & XV, C.P.C., which dealt with issues, also supported that if parties were not at issue, judgment was to be passed straightaway without recording evidence—If no cause of action was made out, plaint was liable to be rejected—No ground, therefore, existed to consider the leave applications which were dismissed and plaint of suit filed by them was rejected—Suit for recovery of loan amount was decreed in circumstances.
2012 YLR 1454 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
BIBI SAKINA VS Haji ASMATULLAH
39—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.15 & 16—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R. 4—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 118—Suit for cancellation of mutation entry and sale agreement—Plaintiff’s plea that such entry and agreement was result of fraud, coercion and undue influence—Burden of proof—Plaintiff would be bound to prove such plea by leading evidence to the effect that defendant was in a position to dominate his will and advanced to him, threats—Plaint and evidence led by plaintiff did not disclose method through which plaintiff was threatened or put under influence for purpose of effecting suit mutation in revenue record—Suit was dismissed, in circumstances.
2011 PLD 44 SUPREME-COURT
PAKCOM LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
16—Undue influence—Things to be proved before a contract can be said to be induced by undue influence, enumerated—Onus of proving that contract was not induced by undue influence rests on the person in a position to dominate the will of the other.
2011 PLD 44 SUPREME-COURT
PAKCOM LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Ss. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 & 22—“Coercion”, “undue influence “, “fraud”, “misrepresentation”, “mistake”-Scope-“Consent”-Ingredients-Where all the terms and conditions enumerated in the contract have been accepted by the parties freely and at their own, contract does not fall within the ambit of “coercion” as defined in S.15 or “undue influence” as defined in S.16 or “fraud” as defined in S.17 or “misrepresentation” as defined in S.18 or “mistake” as enshrined in Ss.20, 21, 22 of the Contract Act, 1872—All agreements or contracts are made by the free consent of parties—“Consent” is said to be free as provided under S.14 of the Act, when it is not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation and mistake subject to the provisions of Ss.20, 21 & 22 of Contract Act, 1872—Principles.
2011 PLD 23 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Mst. NISHAT alias SHATO VS MUSLIM KHAN alias MUSALI
42—Qanun-e-Shuhadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 79, 80, 102, 103, 127 & 129(g)—Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 60—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.54—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.16—Suit for declaration—Registered sale-deed by niece (plaintiff) in favour of her real uncle (defendant)—Plaintiff (pardah-nasheen orphan lady of 20 years age at relevant time) alleged sale-deed to be fake, fraudulent and without consideration; and that she was paid share in produce of suit land till filing of suit and she got knowledge of sale-deed from Patwari Halqa—Proof—Onus to prove such sale was on the defendant—Defendant’s witness deposed that sale consideration paid in his presence to plaintiff in office of Sub-Registrar was Rs.6,000—Sale consideration recorded in sale-deed was Rs.2,000, which did not show thumb impression of defendant’s witness—Such deposition of defendant’s witness for being beyond terms of sale agreement was not admissible in evidence for being hit by Arts. 102 and 103 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—Lambardar, alleged witness before Sub-Registrar, had neither been examined nor produced, secondary evidence to prove his signatures nor brought on record proof about death of lambardar–Defendant had not examined scribe of sale-deed and Sub-Registrar being important witnesses, thus, presumption could be drawn against defendant under Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—Defendant had failed to prove execution of sale-deed as required under Arts. 78 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—According to expert report, signatures of plaintiff on sale-deed did not match with admitted signatures, whereas her thumb impression was similar to that of admitted thumb impression—Expert opinion being weak type of evidence could not be considered in supersession of other material available on record, whereby inference could be drawn altogether contrary to expert report—Nothing was available on record to prove sale consideration and payment of sale consideration, which seemed to be result of fraud and undue influence—Sale consideration being an essential element of a valid sale transaction, thus, without its proof, any transaction purported to be a sale would not be declared as such—According to defendant’s attorney, plaintiff was being paid produce of suit land—Payment of produce of suit land to plaintiff after its alleged purchase by defendant, was sufficient to show that sale was fake and fictitious—Plaintiff asserted to have got knowledge of impugned sale few days before filing of suit, thus, suit was within time—Suit was decreed in circumstances.
2011 YLR 1377 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL GHAFOOR VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQ
16—Transfer of property—Undue influence—When an illiterate lady was made to sign or relieve of her property the beneficiary who was to receive the property, onus was upon him to show and prove that transaction made by him was fully proved and clear.
2011 YLR 1377 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL GHAFOOR VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQ
16—Transfer of property—Undue influence—When a Pardanasheen or illiterate woman was made to transfer a property then it was very necessary and important that at the time of transfer of said property she must be assisted by some of her near and close one who could have given her advice as to what she was going to do.
2011 YLR 1377 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL GHAFOOR VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQ
42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.16—Suit for declaration on the ground that plaintiffs being legal heirs of their real cousin (lady) were co-owners in possession of the disputed property which had been transferred to defendants illegally—Defendants contested the suit on the ground that disputed property was transferred to then by virtue of sale transaction—Trial Court dismissed suit of the plaintiffs—Appellate Court, on appeal, allowed the same and reversed findings of the Trial Court—Plaintiffs asserted that no sale was conducted between the parties and all the transactions were based on fraud and forgery—Plaintiffs further contended that since their real cousin was a Pardanasheen lady, the mutation sanctioned by the revenue officer was not a title document and did not confer any right to the defendants unless and until they so proved the same—Validity—Neither the attesting officer nor Pattidar appeared before the court to testify the sale which factor was sufficient to hold that mutation was not proper—Defendants had failed to prove the consideration paid to the Pardanasheen lady, they also failed to prove that at the time of sanction of mutation she was accompanied with the advice of her near and close ones who could fully explain to her the result of what she was doing—Beneficiary was bound ‘to prove that the property sold through mutation was with consideration which defendants had failed to prove—Petition was dismissed by High Court.
2009 CLD 716 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
EXIDE PAKISTAN LTD. through Finance Director and Company Secretary VS Malik ABDUL WADOOD
S.54—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr, 1 & 2—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.16(3)—Suit for permanent injunction to restrain defendant from joining for two years another organization competitor in business with plaintiff—Application for temporary injunction by plaintiff-Plaintiffs, plea was that defendant joined plaintiff-company in year 1971 and resigned from service on 4-12-2007; that such restrictive covenant was contained in plaintiffs letter dated 12-6-2001 addressed to defendant informing him about increase in his salary; that plaintiff came to know in 3rd week of May, 2008 that defendant had joined an organization which was competitor in business with plaintiff—Defendant’s plea was that said restrictive covenant was forged—Validity—Question, whether defendant had accepted restrictive covenant, could be decided only after recording of evidence—Any change in terms and conditions of service to the disadvantage of employee could not be made without his consent and while considering such change made after 35 years of service, principle of equality of bargaining would be looked into—Nothing was available on record to show that plaintiff had issued any letter to all its employees containing such restrictive covenant and had been accepted by them—Restrictive covenant, if for a reasonable time and area, where employee was asked not to indulge in activity, then Court could grant relief to restrain violation of covenant—Defendant during 35 years of service as sales representative could not be said to have acquired secret information about quality control formulated and developed by plaintiff—Except such letter, no other letter of increment issued to defendant earlier did contain such restrictive covenant—Defendant had denied to have consented to such restrictive covenant contained in such letter—Defendant had some information about dealers of plaintiff, who used to sell its products, which information could not be termed as secret information—Plaintiff on 1-1-2008 and 27-3-2008 had addressed letters to defendant at the address of competitive company joined by him—Plaintiff despite having knowledge about joining of defendant such competitive company since 1-1-2008 had not taken action to restrain him from violating restrictive covenant, but filed suit on 28-5-2008—Plaintiff on account of laches was not entitled for equitable relief of injunction—Plaintiff had failed to make out, a prima facie case—Balance of convenience did not lie in plaintiffs favour—Application for temporary injunction was dismissed in circumstances.
2009 CLD 716 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
EXIDE PAKISTAN LTD. through Finance Director and Company Secretary VS Malik ABDUL WADOOD
Ss.10 & 16—Contract of service—Change in terms and conditions of such contract—Scope—No such change could be made without consent of an employee—Principle of equality of bargaining would be looked into while considering any such change made after long service to the disadvantage of an employee.
2008 SCMR 1031 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD ALI VS MANZOOR AHMED
Ss. 11 & 16—Agreement to sell by minor—Minor at relevant time was under care and guardianship of buyers’ father and uncle—Held: Minor was under influence of buyers.
2008 YLR 2841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PHULMAJEERAN BEGUM alias PHULLAN BEGUM VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MAILSI
S.12—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.16–Civil Procedure (V of 1908), O. VII, R.1—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Principal and agent relationship—Written statement, filing of—Illiterate paradahnashin lady—Suit-land was owned by defendant lady who executed general power of attorney in favour of her brother, who entered into agreement to sell with plaintiff—Before the sale could have been completed, the lady transferred suit-land in favour of third person through oral sale—Attorney filed written statement on his as well as on Behalf of the lady but the lady intended to file her written statement independently, which permission was not granted by both the courts below—Validity–Courts should taken due cautions where power of attorney by pardahnashin lady was involved particularly when the lady as principal had denied execution of instrument in the manner it was drawn or executed—Fate of the case of defendant lady was mainly depending upon written statement which she wanted to file in Trial Court—Defendant lady had come out with a specific plea that she never empowered the agent to enter into the transaction of sale—Both the courts below had fallen in error by not permitting pardahnashin lady to file written statement—High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside the orders passed by both the courts below and allowed defendant lady to file her written statement in the suit—Petition was allowed in circumstances.
2007 SCMR 969 SUPREME-COURT
ENAYAT SONS (PVT.) LTD. VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance and others
—-Art. 114—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.15 & 16—Recovery of damages—Principle of estoppel—-Applicability—Coercion or undue influence—Proof—Factual controversy—Suit for damages decreed by Trial Court in favour of plaintiffs, was dismissed ?
2007 SCMR 969 SUPREME-COURT
ENAYAT SONS (PVT.) LTD. VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance and others
—Ss. 15 & 16—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)—Recovery of damages—Judgment at variance—Principles—Suit for damages decreed by Trial Court in favour of plaintiffs was dismissed by Appellate Court and revision filed by plaintiff was ?
2006 MLD 480 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GUL BEGUM VS MUHAMMAD RIAZ
–Ss.122 & 123—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.16– Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42—Suit for declaration—Gift—Proof of execution—Suit-land was allotted to husband of plaintiff as head of family by way of `guzara allowance’—Defendant had cl ?
2005 PLD 658 SUPREME-COURT
Ch. MUNEER HUSSAIN VS Mst. WAZEERAN MAI alias Mst. WAZIR MAI
-S. 16—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 12 & 42- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 78—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and declaration—Beneficiaries of the documents executed by ignorant/illiterate/Parda-observing ladies, hav ?
2005 CLD 982 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Malik MUHAMMAD AMIN VS ZAHID MEHMOOD
—-O. XXXVII Rr. 1 & 2—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.16—Suit for recovery of amount on the basis of promissory note—Defendant had taken stand in the application for leave to defend as well in the written statement, that the pro note was executed by ?
2005 YLR 2409 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM VS Mst. HAMEEDA BEGUM
—Ss. 42 & 54—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 16–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115—Suit for declaration—Gift—Judgment of variance—Pardanashin lady—Undue influence—Onus to prove–Independent legal advice–Plaintiff filed suit for decla ?
2005 YLR 2379 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD AMIN VS SANTO alias GAMAN
—S. 16—Pardanasheen Lady undue influence—Independent advice—Sale—Sale transaction was transacted by the attorney on behalf of woman owner—Attorney was husband of the owner and she was residing with him—Husband was most natural male relative ?
2005 YLR 2379 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD AMIN VS SANTO alias GAMAN
—S. 16—Qanun-e-Shahadat, (10 of 1984), Art.79—Transfer Property Act, (IV of 1882), S.41—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.8 & 42— Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R. 2—Suit for recovery of property—Admission—Admission of register ?
2005 YLR 2088 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. BHAGAN BIBI VS ANWAR ALI
—S. 12— Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.16(2) (b)—Undue influence-Old illiterate person—Ignorant villager—Agriculturist—Pardanashin lady—Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of contract with the defendant old villager accompanied by he ?
2005 PLD 276 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA), KARACHI VS Messrs SEA GOLD TRADERS through Partners
–O. XXXVII, R. 3—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 16—Suit for recovery of money—Leave to defend suit—Undue influence—Creditor being a Government managed controlled and run establishment would always have an edge or influence-over the debtors and s ?
2004 YLR 84 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
M.Z. KHAN VS AZIZ-UD-DIN AHMAD KHAN
—-S. 16—Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2(2)—Undue influence, plea of—Executant of agreement of association in respect of transfer of property had alleged that alleged execution was a result of undue influ ?
2004 CLC 1026 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD RASHEED VS Mst. SALEEMA BIBI
—-S. 16—Undue influence —Pardanashin lady—Protection to–Fiduciary relationship between petitioner and respondent—Transactions claimed against illiterate ladies are to be shown to have contracted out of good conscience and after consultation of ?
2004 MLD 1885 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD RIAZ VS Mst. SANDAL BEGUM
—-S. 12—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17, 79, 82 & 84–ÂContract Act (IX of 1872), S. 16—Document required by law to be attested—Proof of document and signature—Visual comparison–Â Proving an un-attested agreement—Undue influence—Fi ?
2003 PLD 662 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZAFFARULLAH KHAN VS AZIZ-UD-DIN AHMAD KHAN
—-S. 16—Undue influence–Essence—A, who by virtue of an agreement had surrendered his share in the property had alleged that he suffered from a mental ailment and started living with Z (his father-in-law) who, by taking advantage of his ailment, got
2003 PLD 405 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AMBER AHMED KHAN VS PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, KARACHI AIRPORT, KARACHI
—-S. 16—-Undue influence—Illustrations-Transactions between parties enjoying unequal bargaining position would be viewed with suspicion and undue influence could be inferred from such circumstances—Undue influence would be inferred, when benefit w
2003 PLD 25 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
KHURSHID AHMED VS ZEENAT BEGUM
—S. 16—Undue influence, drawing inference of—Criteria—Such influence may be inferred from benefit gained by a person, who had no right to demand such gain under any law or equity or had no moral justification for such gain, and grantor had no rati
2002 YLR 2466 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Babu IRSHAD AHMED VS MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
—-S.16—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 33, 72 & 129(g)—Agreement to sell–Onus to prove—Illiterate old person—Withholding of evidence—Adverse presumption—Disputed agreement to sell was allegedly executed by defendant who was about 100 y
2002 YLR 975 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Mst. SIKANDAR BEGUM VS Syed SHABAHAT ALI
?
2001 YLR 2189 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUZAFFAR ALI KHAN VS NAIB TEHSILDAR RECOVERY, TEHSIL DEPALPUR, DISTRICT OKARA
Contract Act 1872 —-S.16—Contract secured under undue influence and pressure—Value.
2001 MLD 2019 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
DOST MUHAMMAD VS MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE
Contract Act 1872 —-Ss.16&,215—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Power of attorney—Trust of principal—Attorney transferring the property under agency in the names of his sons—Agreement to sell in favour of the sons of the attorney was allegedly executed a day prior to the registered power of attorney—Such fact of registration of power of attorney was not mentioned in the document (general power of attorney document) and the same was not presented before the Collector alongwith application praying for transfer of the land in favour of the two sons of the attorney–Agreement appeared to be a forged document and that was why the same was neither presented before the Revenue Authorities nor before High Court through a written statement—Effect—Attempt by the agent to transfer the land of principal was hit by Ss. 16 & 215 of Contract Act, 1872—Agent in the relationship of principal and attorney, enjoyed the position of dominate influence—Agent was enjoined under the law not to make a transfer of property of the principal in his own name or in the name of his associates without explicit consent of the principal—Order passed by Board of Revenue was against the mandate of the law as laid down by Supreme Court in cases reported as PLD 1985 SC 341 and 1994 SOMR 818 and the order was set aside—Constitutional revision was allowed accordingly.
2000 CLC 4 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FAISAL FABRICS LTD. VS TOWN COMMITTEE, KHURRIANWALA
Ss. 15 & 16—Contract—Elements of coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation—Proof—Where such allegations were pleaded against a contract the same were to be proved in the manner as that of the allegations of fraud—Allegations of coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation were to be proved through strong and independent evidence.
1998 PLD 132 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZAKAULLAH KHAN VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Contract Act 1872 Ss. 15, 16 & 19—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.14—Letters Patent Lahore (1911), Cl. 10—Contractor’s claim to enhanced rate than accepted by him at earlier stage—Matter referred to arbitrator—Arbitrator found that acceptance of rates by contractor at relevant time was “under forced circumstances “—Such finding was exclusively relatable to domain of facts—Arbitrator being Judge, of facts and law, High Court would have no jurisdiction to give finding that he misconducted himself—Finding of High Court (Single Judge) to the contrary was set aside while that of Trial Court making award rule of Court was restored.
1997 PLD 62 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL RAHIM VS U.B.
Contract Act 1872 Ss. 6 & 2(e)—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 17—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 16, 10 & 14—Contract—Document relating to finance—Attestation by witnesses—Validity—Where signatures are obtained on blank forms/documents, mere attestation by the number of witnesses thereon in terms -,of Art: 17(2)(a), Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 would not save the document from being .declared unenforceable on grounds of unconscionability, inequality of bargaining power as well as economic duress.
1997 CLC 1342 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TAWAKKAL EXPORT CORPORATION VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.
Contract Act 1872 Ss. 16 & 17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Facts constituting misrepresentation and fraud—Mere psychological pressure, even if conceded, would not qualify to be either misrepresentation or fraud.
1995 CLC 1751 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SAFDAR ALI VS MUHAMMAD MALIK
Ss. 10, 11, 14, 15 & 16—Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S. 12—Splitting up of claim—Partial specific performance, when could not be permitted—No partial specific performance of contract could be permitted unless not only share of vendees but also proportion in which they had paid price was mentioned in agreement in question—Price having been mentioned in lump sum, transaction in question was not capable of being split up.
1994 PLD 100 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
JHANDA VS MUHAMMAD YOUSAF
—-S. 16—Undue influence—Proof—Mere allegations of good relations between parties without any clear suggestion that one of them was in a position to dominate- the other. would not justify the Court in the assuming that undue influence must have nec
1994 MLD 656 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ISLAMUDDIN TAIMURI VS ESMAIL MUHAMMAD BAHI
Contract Act 1872 —-Ss.15 & 16—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.133—Suit on negotiable instrument (cheque)—Defendant setting up pleas of coercion and undue influence by Authorities while putting his signature on the cheque in question—Defendant’s such version having not been challenged in cross-examination his plea of coercion and undue influence in signing cheque in question was established on record.—[Undue influence].
1993 SCMR 145 SUPREME-COURT
SHAMIR VS FAIZ ELAHI
Contract Act 1872 —-Ss.16 & 17—Allegations of undue influence and fraud—Proof—No evidence was produced by vendor to substantiate allegations of undue influence and fraud—Vendor did not himself appear as a witness to depose on oath/solemn affirmation regarding fraud or undue influence practised upon him in the execution of agreement to sell and compromise in the passing of decree for specific performance by Court—Fraud must be proved through strong and independent evidence—No evidence at all having been produced in support of allegations of fraud and undue influence, same were not proved in circumstances.
1993 MLD 1979 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SIDDIQAN VS MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM
Contract Act 1872 —-S.16—Document allegedly executed by Pardanashin/illiterate lady—Person holding power of attorney on behalf of such lady and the beneficiary of the document were under obligation to have proved by cogent unimpeachable testimony that such lady/ladies had executed document in question, after fully understanding such document and had empowered the alleged attorney to make sale of land in question—Beneficiaries of the document in question and the alleged attorney simply contended themselves by proving execution of power of attorney and registered sale-deed—No effort whatsoever, was made by such party to prove that documents in question, were executed by the ladies concerned after understanding contents and effect thereof—In absence of such proof, special power of attorney allegedly executed by ladies concerned clearly offended the provision of S.16, Contract Act, 1872—Sale-deed on basis of such power of attorney, being clearly violative of the principle of protection available to Pardanashin/illiterate ladies was, thus not binding on such ladies.
1992 SCMR 1488 SUPREME-COURT
RIAZ AHMED VS INAYAT ULLAH
Contract Act 1872 —-Ss. 16 & 214—Sale of property by attorney—Power of attorney was executed as far back as in 1967 but no evidence of sale of any part of the property by the attorney had been brought on record—At best attorney might have been managing the agricultural land as well as bungalows on behalf of the executants—Attorney in case of bungalows had not been able to realise rent which had swollen to a huge amount—One of the executants was younger brother of attorney while remaining were Pardahnashin ladies—Attorney being the eldest male member in the family had the dominant position—Held, although the power of attorney was executed by the executants in favour of attorney, as he had never acted upon the power to sell the property for a very long period and prior to executing agreement to sell he did not bring it to the knowledge of executants of power of attorney, the sale could not have been validly made—Attorney was duty bound to have brought to the notice of executants of power of attorney the intended sale prior to entering into the agreement to sell and sought instructions in that behalf—Failure of attorney to do so was a complete failure on his part to discharge his duty in this regard.
1991 MLD 1545 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM AHMED VS AZIZAN
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 16—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)—Transaction of sale—Bona fides of–Where plaintiff aged about twenty years was living with her mother in the house of defendant who had become her step father at the time of alleged sale, she was under the influence of defendant and as such it was for him to show that transaction of sale was bona fide and that he had not taken any undue advantage of his position as a step-father.
1990 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT
GHULAM ALI VS GHULAM SARWAR NAQVI
Ss. 25, 23 & 16 — Relinquishment of her inheritance by a female co-sharer without consideration — Such relinquishment having been declared void being against public policy under S. 23 of the Contract Act cannot be revived and given life merely because it suffered from another serious infirmity and such infirmity could not be overcome by a resort to exceptions given in S.25 of the Act- -Presumption would be that relinquishment was not on account of natural love but on account of social constraints.
1989 PLD 440 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
WALI MUHAMMAD VS MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM
S.16??Pardanashin lady??Ignorant villager??Undue influence?Ignorant agriculturist to be treated at par with Pardanashin lady?Provisions of S.16 of Contract Act were thus applicable to transaction made by ignorant villager??Attorney alienating his principals property would have imperative duty to establish that sale?deed made by him was bona fide transaction??Whenever it was established that the person who had executed certain document was under the influence of a person who dominated him. beneficiary of contract was under imperative duty to prove that the transaction entered into by an illiterate old person was without any undue influence??Attorney executing the document of sale on behalf of his principal had not brought on record any evidence to the effect that he made the sale without the exercise of his dominant influence and by providing independent advice to his principal??Attorneys only case was that he had the power of sale under the Deed of Attorney and had validly made the sale in favour of his own s
1987 CLC 2244 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS FATEH MUHAMMAD
Contract Act 1872 Ss. 16 & 19–Consent of a party to transaction induced by suggestion of a fraudulent fact–Person so deceived having means of discovering truth with ordinary diligence–Effect–Where consent of a party was induced by the suggestion of a fact which was not true, and was fraudulent, exchange deed so effected, held, would nevertheless be not voidable where person deceived had means of discovering truth with ordinary diligence.
1987 CLC 584 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SAADULLAH KHAN VS ALI AHMAD
Contract Act 1872 S. 16–Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.54-. Qanun-eShahadat Order (10 of 1984), Arts. 70 & 71–Sale transaction–Undue influence–Proof–Oral depositions of witnesses produced by plaintiff to prove mental incapacity of vendor and undue influence of vendees on such vendor in respect of disputed sale transaction, being not based on personal observations or knowledge of witnesses, held, could not be relied upon–Important facts like exercise of undue influence on vendor by vendees and mental incapacity of vendor which could affect sale transactions, could, hardly be established by such unreliable oral evidence.
1985 PLD 431 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
B. P. VS HAJRA BAI
16-Pardanashin lady-Criterion-Transaction with illiterate man and illiterate Pardanashin lady-Document allegedly executed by illiterate man or illiterate Pardanashin lady-Such persons who on account of their ignorance, inexperience and social conditions are not able to understand nature of business transaction, have been provided a cloak of protection-Onus in such cases is always on person who sakes advantages of a transaction to show that transaction was actually conceived and put into practice by disposer himself- Such onus how to be discharged.-[Burden of proof].
1984 CLC 3413 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AHMAD YAR VS HASSAN ALI SHAH
— S. 16(3)-Undue influence-Unconscionable transaction-Person being in a position to dominate will of other-Burden of proof-Appellant admittedly murid of respondent who was his murshid-Appellant alleging that respondent got power of attorney executed by h
1984 MLD 1069 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS GHULAM HUSSAIN
Contract Act 1872 —S. 16–Undue influence–‘Purdah’–Custom of–Presumption–‘Pardah’ presumed to exist among ladies of Sind, unless contrary was pleaded and proved.
1982 SCMR 248 SUPREME-COURT
ABDULLAH JAN VS TILA MUHAMMAD
— S. 16(2) read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)Contract-Undue influence-Both Courts below recording concurrent finding of fact on question of soundness of mind of vendor and absence of undue influence over him and such finding sustainable ?
1980 PLC(CS) 139 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
R. AZAR VS PAKISTAN THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD. P. W. R., LAHORE
— S. 16—Coercion—“Undue influence”-Person finding himself losing his honour or surrendering to demands of another.-Choice to save honour by surrendering right-Held, neither free nor voluntary but under compulsion of circumstances–Act not done freel
1977 SCMR 193 SUPREME-COURT
NAWAB VS ALLAH RAKHA
—–S. 16 read with Muhammadan Law-Gift-Undue influence Gift deeds proved by petition-writer and attesting witness to have been executed at donor’s instance-Deeds read over to executant twice, once by petition-writer and secondly before Registrar-Executa
1975 PLD 624 SUPREME-COURT
HAMIDA BEGUM VS MURAD BEGUM
Contract Act 1872 –S. 16-Undue influence-When can be inferred.
1973 PLD 47 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUMTAZ VS MIAN KHAN
Contract Act 1872 S. 16-Undue influence-Facts to be established for succeeding on ground of undue influence-Merely raising an atmosphere of suspicion-Held, not sufficient.
1969 SCMR 531 SUPREME-COURT
FAZAL MUHAMMAD VS NABI BAKHSH
— S. 16-Undue influence–Question whether on proved facts undue influence could be held established-Can in particular case, be question of law-Gift deed-Existence of authority or influence established-Burden to prove that deed was not due to undue influ
1969 PLD 324 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MST. HAWA VS MUHAMMAD YOUSUF AND OTHERS
Contract Act 1872 S.16-Transactions with pardanashin lady-Document allegedly executed by illiterate purdanashia lady-Suit for cancellation of document on grounds of fraud-Onus of proof regarding genuineness of deed lies on party taking advantage of transaction-Protection to pardanashin ladyRule stated-Protection for pardanashin lady applicable in all cases whether such lady a plaintiff or defendant-[Muhammad Shqfi and another v. Mst. Kalsum Bi and others A I R 1924 Lah. 200 dissented from].
1967 PLD 613 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALLAH RAKHA VS NAWAB
(f) Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 16-Undue influence Burden of proof.
1967 PLD 391 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD BASHIR VS WILAYAT BEGUM
(e) Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 10, 16 & 17-Clear distinction exists between mere inadequacy of consideration for transfer of property and securing its transfer by mean v of fraud or undue influence for inadequate consideration.
1967 PLD 733 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AISHA BAI VS USMAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER
Contract Act 1872 — S. 16-Person seeking to set aside contract alleged to have been entered into by him on false and fraudulent representation-Should be prompt in seeking redress-Lapse of long time disentitles such person to seek any relief from Court.
1967 PLD 733 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AISHA BAI VS USMAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER
Contract Act 1872 —- S. 16-Undue influence-Woman entering into contract literate having full business aptitude as well as capable of looking after her own interest-Not entitled to any special consideration.
1966 PLD 121 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
ABDUR REHMAN VS KHALILUR REHMAN AND OTHERS
Gift – Right of revocation dies with donor-Suit for revocation-Donor’s death during pendency of suit or appeal Legal representatives not entitled to continue proceedings-Suit not for revocation (rijaa) but for cancellation (tansikh) of gift deed stands on different footing-Such suit not only competent but right to sue survives after death of plaintiff donor-Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S. 39 read with Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 15, 16, 17 & 18.
1965 PLD 729 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
WEST PAKISTAN PROVINCE VS JAMSHED MIRAN
Contract Act 1872 —–S. 16-Government servant–Temporary employee – Condition that services liable to be terminated on one month’s notice not imposed at time of appointment-Declaration obtained from employee himself subsequently that his appointment was subject to such condition-Transaction, held, unconscionable and not binding on employee-Government of India Act, 1935, Ss. 240 & 241.
1963 PLD 960 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HAJI GHULAM MUSTAFA VS ALLAH BUX
-Execution admitted by debtor but allegation that receipt was obtained under coercion and undue influence and that no consideration was received-Burden lies on debtor to prove undue influence and non-receipt of consideration-Evidence Act (I of 1872), Ss.
1963 PLD 825 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TAJ DIN VS ABDUR REHMAN
Ss. 16, 17 & 19-Contract of sale-Party admitting execution of document but denying payment of consideration-Onus lies on him to prove non-payment of Consideration-Party admitting signature on document but contending
that being illiterate he had signed document in ignorance of its contents-Onus to prove valid execution of document lies on person relying on it.
Ss. 16, 17 & 19-Contract of sale-Party admitting execution of document but denying payment of consideration-Onus lies on him to prove non-payment of Consideration-Party admitting signature on document but contending
that being illiterate he had signed document in ignorance of its contents-Onus to prove valid execution of document lies on person relying on it.
1962 PLD 409 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SHEIKH MUHAMMAD OBAID VS MUHAMMAD RAFI QURESHI
Contract Act 1872 Ss. 15 & 16—“Undue influence” inform of “coercion”-Undue influence can arise even in cases between strangers-Agreement got executed by means of threat of criminal prosecution-When can be said to have been obtained by coercion.
1961 PLD 305 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MAJOR AZIZ AHMED MOHAMMAD VS MANZOOR AHMED SAHI
Defendant deciding to employ plaintiff as General Manager of his estate because of plaintiff’s leading a deeply religious life-Contract of employment, held, not to have been induced by undue influence-Hard bargain is not necessarily unconscionable–Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 16 and 19-A.
1958 PLD 614 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL AZIZ-PLAINTIFF VS THE MULTAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED-DEFENDANT
Contract Act 1872 S. 16-Undue influence Existence of a particular relationship between parties not necessary -Burden of proof:
1956 PLD 153 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
BIDHU MUKHI DASSYA VS SM. SARLA SUNDRI DASSYA
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 16-‘`Undue influence” “Dominate” —Meaning of -Onus of proof. The present suit was filed for declaration that the deed of gift executed by husband in favour of his wife was illegal, inoperative and void on the ground that it had been obtained by undue influence and coercion.