Muhammad Yousaf Khan V. Haji Barat and another,
MLD 2018 904 · Balochistan High Court
This case is about a property dispute in Quetta over ownership of a house and adjoining land with shops. Muhammad Yousaf claimed he owned the property through inheritance from his father, shared with his brother, and that it had been given to Haji Barat only as a licensee (with permission to use it, not own it) since 1969-70. When Yousaf later asked Haji Barat to vacate, Haji Barat refused, claiming he had actually purchased the property through written agreements executed in 1976, 1977, and 1982, for which he had paid money.
The trial court and the appeals court both sided with Haji Barat and dismissed Yousaf's suit, relying heavily on these purchase agreements. Yousaf then challenged both decisions before the Balochistan High Court.
The High Court ruled in Yousaf's favor. It held that simply placing documents like the agreements on record is not enough to prove a property sale - their execution must be properly proved through evidence, including signatures and witnesses. Since the agreement involved a financial transaction, at least two marginal (attesting) witnesses were legally required to prove it, but Haji Barat had produced only one. The court found that the lower courts had wrongly presumed the documents were valid without proper proof. Because Haji Barat, as the person relying on the agreements, failed to establish their authenticity, his claim of ownership could not stand. The court set aside the earlier judgments, declared Yousaf the rightful owner, and ordered Haji Barat to hand over vacant possession of the property.
یہ مقدمہ کوئٹہ میں ایک مکان اور اس سے ملحقہ دکانوں والی زمین کی ملکیت کے تنازعے سے متعلق ہے۔ محمد یوسف نے دعویٰ کیا کہ وہ اپنے والد سے وراثت میں ملنے والی اس جائیداد کا مالک ہے، جس میں اس کا بھائی بھی حصہ دار ہے، اور یہ کہ یہ جائیداد 1969-70 سے حاجی برات کو محض بطور لائسنسی (استعمال کی اجازت کے تحت، نہ کہ ملکیت کے طور پر) دی گئی تھی۔ جب یوسف نے بعد میں حاجی برات سے جائیداد خالی کرنے کا مطالبہ کیا تو حاجی برات نے انکار کر دیا اور دعویٰ کیا کہ اس نے دراصل یہ جائیداد 1976، 1977 اور 1982 میں تحریری معاہدوں کے ذریعے خریدی تھی، جس کے عوض اس نے رقم ادا کی تھی۔
ٹرائل کورٹ اور اپیل کورٹ، دونوں نے ان خرید و فروخت کے معاہدوں پر بھاری انحصار کرتے ہوئے حاجی برات کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا اور یوسف کا دعویٰ خارج کر دیا۔ اس پر یوسف نے دونوں فیصلوں کو بلوچستان