Onus of proof lies on the person alleging benami transaction
PLJ 2009 Peshawar 211 · Peshawar High Court
This case was about a dispute over ownership of a shop in Dera Ismail Khan. Haji Nawab Khan claimed that although the shop was registered in the name of Shaizullah Khan following a 1974 court decree, it was actually a "benami" transaction, meaning the real owner was Nawab Khan himself, with Shaizullah Khan holding title only on paper. Nawab Khan said he had been in continuous possession, ran his business there, paid taxes and utility bills in his name, and spent heavily rebuilding the shop. When Shaizullah Khan later refused to transfer formal ownership, Nawab Khan sued for a declaration that he was the true owner. Both the trial court and the appellate court had dismissed his suit, finding against him.
The Peshawar High Court examined the evidence produced by both sides and found that the lower courts had failed to properly consider important evidence presented by Nawab Khan, including testimony about long possession, construction of the building, tax records, and mediation proceedings between the parties. The court reaffirmed the legal principle that while the person alleging a benami transaction must initially prove it, the burden can shift to the other side once key elements are established. Since this evidence had not been properly weighed, the onus of proof was wrongly placed. The High Court therefore remanded the case for fresh consideration. This decision matters because it clarifies how courts must handle burden of proof in benami property disputes, ensuring all relevant evidence is properly evaluated before deciding ownership claims.
یہ مقدمہ ڈیرہ اسماعیل خان میں واقع ایک دکان کی ملکیت کے تنازعے سے متعلق تھا۔ حاجی نواب خان کا دعویٰ تھا کہ اگرچہ 1974 کی عدالتی ڈگری کے نتیجے میں یہ دکان شیر اللہ خان کے نام رجسٹرڈ تھی، لیکن حقیقت میں یہ ایک "بے نامی" لین دین تھا، یعنی اصل مالک نواب خان خود تھا جبکہ شیر اللہ خان کے پاس صرف کاغذی طور پر ملکیت کا عنوان موجود تھا۔ نواب خان کا کہنا تھا کہ وہ مسلسل دکان کے قبضے میں رہا، وہیں اپنا کاروبار چلاتا رہا، اپنے نام پر ٹیکس اور بجلی وغیرہ کے بل ادا کرتا رہا، اور دکان کی ازسرِ نو تعمیر پر بھاری رقم خرچ کی۔ جب شیر اللہ خان نے بعد میں باقاعدہ ملکیت منتقل کرنے سے انکار کر دیا تو نواب خان نے عدالت میں یہ اعلان حاصل کرنے کے لیے دعویٰ دائر کیا کہ وہی اصل مالک ہے۔ ٹرائل کورٹ اور اپیلیٹ کورٹ دونوں نے اس کا دعویٰ خارج کر دیا اور فیصلہ اس کے خلاف دیا۔
پشاور ہائی کورٹ نے فریقین کی طرف