ASSIGNMENT BY: SHAHER BANO (168-2023)
WAJIHA (145-2023)
AMNA ASGHAR (164-2023)
BATCH: 49
COURSE TITLE: LAW OF PROPERTY
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 20-MAY-2025
DR. ABDUL RASHID PARACHA VS.
DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY &
OTHERS
PARTIES
Plaintiff:
Dr. Abdul Rashid Paracha (a Pakistani-origin U.S. citizen)
Main Defendant:
Defence Housing Authority (DHA), Karachi
Other Defendants:
Several individuals, including subsequent purchasers and government
registrars.
BACKGROUND:
Dr. Paracha, a medical professional residing in the United States, claimed
ownership of Plot No. 25, 27th Street, Phase-V, DHA Karachi (1000 sq. yards),
which he allegedly purchased in 1978 for Rs. 62,000. He received a transfer letter
from DHA dated 05.05.1978.
Upon returning to Karachi in May 2000, he discovered two houses built on the
plot. Inquiries revealed that the land had been transferred to other private parties.
Claiming fraudulent transfer, he filed a civil suit seeking:
1. Declaration of ownership,
2. Cancellation of transfers,
3. Injunction against third-party interest,
4. Ejection of current occupants,
5. Damages worth Rs. 10 million.
Plaintiff’s Argument:
1. He argued he was in the U.S. treating patients at Princeton Community
Hospital during May 1990.
2. Submitted notarized hospital letters and his American passport as evidence.
3. Claimed the original Transfer Order of 1978 was still in his possession,
which contradicted DHA’s records.
4. Highlighted procedural lapses (e.g., two transfers within two weeks, against
DHA’s usual timeline of 3-4 weeks).
DHA’S DEFENSE:
1. DHA stated the Plaintiff himself appeared in person on 13.05.1990 and
initiated the first transfer to Amir Abdul (Defendant No. 2).
2. Subsequently, Amir Abdul transferred the plot to Rashida Bano (Defendant
No. 5) on 29.05.1990.
3. The plot was sub-divided into two plots (25/I and 25/II), each of 500 sq.
yards, which were further transferred to other defendants (Shujaat Ali, Sabra
Begum, Ajmal Hussain, and Zahida Khan).
4. DHA emphasized that video recording of property transactions was not in
place in 1990 and that Plaintiff had not submitted his passport travel records
to prove he was out of Pakistan on the disputed dates.
ISSUES FRAMED BY COURT:
1. Whether the suit is barred by law.
2. Whether Plaintiff is the lawful owner.
3. Whether the 1990 transfer was forged.
4. Whether DHA must allot an alternate plot.
5. Whether the plot was lawfully subdivided and leased.
6. Whether the subsequent buyers were bona fide purchasers.
7. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to damages.
Findings:
1. Ownership Acknowledged:
The court affirmed that Plaintiff was the original lawful owner.
2. Limitation Not Barred:
The claim wasn't time-barred.
3. Forgery Not Proven:
Plaintiff failed to prove fraud conclusively. He didn’t produce his Pakistani
passport, and the court invoked the "best evidence rule" under Article 129(g) of the
Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, inferring adverse presumption against him.
4. Subsequent Transfers Upheld:
The subdivision and leases were official, and Defendants No. 8 and 9 were found
to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice, with proper registration and
building completion certificates.
5. No Damages Awarded:
The claim for Rs. 10 million was rejected.
Conclusion:
The suit was dismissed, and while the Plaintiff's original ownership was
acknowledged, he failed to prove fraud or forgery in subsequent transfers. As a
result:
1. No alternate plot was ordered.
2. No cancellation of existing leases or titles was made.
3. No damages were awarded.
4. The court left parties to bear their own costs.
THE END