Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 IHC 258421
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Dr Ijaz Bashir etc vs Qazi Humayum etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2026 IHC 258421. In this matter between Dr Ijaz Bashir etc and Qazi Humayum etc, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani DECISION DATE: 28-APR-2026 CASE NO: Civil Revision-340-2025 CITATION: 2026 IHC 258421 PARTIES: Dr Ijaz Bashir etc VS Qazi Humayum etc LAW / SECTION: under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 | under section 42 of the Act of 1877 SUBJECT: Against Judgement & Decree, REMARKS: Revision against partial acceptance of appeal and non-answering on certain issues. Seeks relief in total. ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
Civil Revision No.340-2025
Dr. Ijaz Bashir and another Versus Qazi Humayun and others.
Civil Revision No.314-2025
Ambassador (R) Qazi Humayun Versus Dr. Ijaz Bashir and others.
Petitioners by: Barrister Adil Aziz Qazi, Mr. Muhammad Yasin Iqbal, Barrister Malik Talha Ahmad and Ms. Maimoona Mudassir, Advocates alongwith petitioners (in C.R. No.340-2025). Mr. Babar Mumtaz, Advocate (in C.R. No.314-2025).
Respondents by: Mr. Babar Mumtaz, Advocate for respondent No.1 (in C.R. No.340- 2025). Barrister Adil Aziz Qazi, Mr. Muhammad Yasin Iqbal, Barrister Malik Talha Ahmad and Ms. Maimoona Mudassir, Advocates for respondent No.1 (in C.R. No.314- 2025). Ms. Iffra Muzammil Gondal, State Counsel.
Date of Hearing: 06.04.2026.
………………………………………………………………………………………
MOHSIN AKHTAR KAYANI J., Through this single judgment, I intend to decide both the captioned civil revisions arising out of the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge (West), Islamabad, whereby suit for declaration, cancellation of documents dated 20.01.2017 and 23.01.2017, and permanent injunction was initially dismissed; however, later on, learned first appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the parties to the following effect:
2
C.R. No.340-2025 C.R No.314-2025
New appointments against vacant offices of Trustee are required to be made within a reasonable time with agreement of all the existing Trustees. As per Clause 22 of the Trust Deed, the Managing Trustee shall represent the Trust in all actions, proceedings and matters relating to the Trust and shall have the power to engage lawyers, to institute or defend suit or other proceedings and prosecute all type of actions etc. Hence, the Managing Trustee i.e. respondent/defendant No.1 is hereby directed and bound down to convene meeting of existing/remaining Trustees as early as possible. The existing/remaining Trustees i.e. both the appellants/plaintiffs and respondent No.1/Qazi Humayun, respondent No.3/Muhammad Masud Khan, respondent No.1/Mr. Aslam Qazi and respondent No.7/Mr. Imran Ali Malik shall make their best efforts to appoint new Trustees against the vacant offices of Trustee with agreement as early as possible but not later than 45 days from the date of this judgment. If they cannot agree or they fail to appoint the new Trustees against the vacant offices of Trustee within 45 days from the date of instant judgment, respondent/defendant No.1 Qazi Humayun, being Managing Trustee, will be bound to approach the court within one week for said new appointment/s by the court as per Clause 24 of the Trust of Deed. Any failure on the part of the Managing Trustee to approach the court for appointment of requisite new Trustees within a week after lapse of 45 days, will amount to gross negligence on his part providing a lawful ground of his removal from the office of Managing Trustee. It is also directed that minutes of every meeting of the Trustees shall be recorded and its record be preserved as it is the requirement of Trust Deed itself.
2. Both sides, in their cross Civil Revisions, have challenged the above findings of the appellate Court on the basis of their respective principal stances. 3. Arguments heard. Record perused. 4. Perusal of record reflects that Pakistan Youth Hostel Association Trust (hereinafter referred to as “the Trust”) is a non- political, non-profit making, non-government organization, registered on 28.02.1981 under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, to build various youth hostels all over the country with its own resources. The Constitution of PYHA provides for the creation of a Trust comprising all the properties and assets of the Association, and pursuant to Article 28 of the Constitution, the Executive Committee of the Trust passed a resolution on 31.08.1997 to create a Trust of all the assets of PYHA. A Deed of
3
C.R. No.340-2025 C.R No.314-2025
Trust was accordingly executed and duly registered with the Joint Registrar, Islamabad, on 29.05.1999, referred as Exh.D1. As per the Trust Deed, all the functions of the Trust are to be executed by a Board of Trustees consisting of nine persons mentioned in the Deed of Trust: i. Begum Viqar-un-Nisa Noon N.I., former Minister of State, Government of Pakistan. ii. Malik Meraj Khalid, Rector, International Islamic University, Islamabad. iii. Dr. Anwar H. Siddiqui, Vice Chancellor, Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad. iv. Mr. M. Aftab former Director General, Associated Press of Pakistan, Islamabad. v. Professor Nisar Ahmed Shah, Lecturer, Himayat-i-Islam Law College, Lahore. vi. Mr. Omer Malik, President, A.Y.M. Corporation, Lahore. vii. Agha Afzaal Hussain, Additional Secretary, Senate of Pakistan. viii. Dr. Akhtar Rehman, Chest Specialist, F-8/3, Islamabad. ix. Qazi Hamayun, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. (hereinafter called “The Trustees”) which expression shall include the trustees for the time being of the other part.
5. The above-mentioned persons are called the Principal Trustees. However, at present, respondent No.1 Qazi Humayun has been left out from that list of nine persons, who were declared as Principal Trustees during the course of arguments as well as in this order. Whereas, after the demise of some of the Trustees and resignation of others, new Trustees have been appointed, and at present, Qazi Humayun has been appointed as Managing Trustee, who is also acting as Managing Director of the Trust. 6. As per record, prior to the appointment of Qazi Humayun as Managing Trustee, late Agha Afzal Hussain remained Managing Trustee till his demise on 04.08.2015, whereas Mr. Anwar Siddiqui (deceased defendant No.2) had been acting as a co-signatory to sign cheques jointly with Agha Afzal Hussain during his lifetime. However, in their absence, Qazi Humayun (defendant No.1) and
4
C.R. No.340-2025 C.R No.314-2025
Raja Muhammad Amin (petitioner in CR No.340 of 2025) have been performing the functions of Managing Trustee and co- signatory, respectively. 7. After the demise of Agha Afzal Hussain, former Managing Trustee, the Board of Trustees, in an emergency meeting, appointed Qazi Humayun as Managing Trustee through a resolution passed on 07.08.2015, which was duly signed by the persons present on that day, including late Umar Malik. The Board also appointed Muhammad Masood Khan as Trustee against the vacancy caused due to the death of Agha Afzal Hussain, the former Managing Trustee. Another vacancy was also filled due to the demise of Umar Malik on 24.01.2020. Similarly, it has also been admitted on record that Raja Muhammad Amin and Qazi Humayun had been signing cheques and other documents as Trustees jointly till October 2016; however, thereafter, certain unilateral decisions were taken, as reflected from the record. 8. The primary dispute raised in the main civil suit by Muhammad Aftab, Dr. Ijaz Bashir, and Raja Muhammad Amin, in a suit for declaration, cancellation of documents dated 20.01.2017 and 23.01.2017, and permanent injunction, is primarily with regard to the resolution dated 20.01.2017 as well as the subsequent registration of addendum to the Trust Deed (Exh.DW1/6 and Exh.DW1/7). The said resolution reflects the minutes of the Trustees’ meeting held on 20.01.2017, whereby three Trustees, namely Dr. Anwar Siddiqui, Umar Malik, and Qazi Humayun (Managing Trustee) held a meeting, in which Trustee Aftab did not attend, and they declared that Raja Muhammad Amin and Ijaz Bashir, who claimed to be Trustees, were debarred
5
C.R. No.340-2025 C.R No.314-2025
from attending meetings or claiming to be Trustees on the ground that they failed to provide any proof of appointment or any resolution or amendment in the Trust Deed dated 29.05.1999. At the same time, the said Trustees appointed four new Trustees, namely Imran Malik, Tariq Hanif Khan, Mumtaz, and Aslam Qazi, respectively, whereas the addendum to the Deed of Trust was also registered before the Joint Sub-Registrar, Islamabad, wherein these new Trustees’ names have been incorporated along with the principal Trust document dated 29.05.1999. These two documents have been challenged by the petitioners in C.R No.340 of 2025. However, at present, the vacancy position available on record has also been addressed during the course of arguments and is admitted by both sides. 9. In addition to above, the contesting defendant Qazi Humayun, during the course of his evidence (Exh.DW1/1), claimed that after the demise of Agha Afzal Hussain, the then Managing Trustee, he had been appointed as Managing Trustee in order to run the affairs of the Trust. That plaintiff No.3, Raja Muhammad Amin, started impersonating himself as a Trustee without lawful appointment through any resolution of the Board of Trustees. 10. It has further been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that Civil Revision No.314 of 2025 was filed by Ambassador (R) Qazi Humayun (petitioner) on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to discharge their onus, as the essential requirements for appointment as a Trustee are the passing of a resolution by the Board of Trustees as well as the registration of an addendum to the Trust Deed before the Joint Sub-Registrar, whereas in the present case, both these requirements are missing
6
C.R. No.340-2025 C.R No.314-2025
on the part of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, however, produced seven witnesses. Abid Hussain, (PW-01), Relationship Manager appeared and confirmed the working of Raja Muhammad Amin. Asad Iqbal, (PW-02), Manager Customer Services, Silk Bank appeared and submitted documents. Usman-ud-Din, National Savings Officer, (PW-03) submitted statements of accounts. Abdul Waheed (PW-04), Area Manager, HBL, Civic Centre Branch G-6 submitted documents (Exh.P1 to Exh.P8 comprising 245 pages), including updated statements of accounts as well as a resolution dated 01.08.2021 (Exh.P11). Arshad Iqbal (PW-05), employee of PYHA Trust submitted document Exh.P12 issued by Agha Afzal Hussain (ex-Managing Trustee). Muhammad Arsalan Hassan (PW- 06) (TSO, MCB) confirmed saving accounts statements (Exh.P13). Dr. Aurangzeb (PW-07) appeared and claimed that he was appointed as a Trustee about 22 years ago, i.e., in the year 2000, and referred to documentary evidence (Exh.P22). However, he admitted that he was unaware of his appointment through any resolution or registered deed and that after 2015 he was never called to any meeting nor any notice was served upon him. During cross-examination, PW-07 acknowledged:
7
C.R. No.340-2025 C.R No.314-2025
That he was not part of the resolution dated 20.01.2017 nor the addendum dated 23.01.2017. 11. The most crucial evidence has been brought on record by Raja Muhammad Amin (plaintiff No.3), who submitted his evidence through Exh.P18 and claimed that the original Trust Deed dated 29.05.1999 is a registered document, and at the time of registration of the Board of Trustees, there were nine members who had signed the same, which is an admitted position on record. However, he acknowledged that, except plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1, all original Trustees have passed away. He further stated that after the demise of Agha Afzal Hussain, former Managing Trustee, who died on 04.08.2015, respondent No.1 Qazi Humayun has been appointed as Managing Trustee. In his affirmative evidence, he contended that the Trust accounts had been operated by Agha Afzal Hussain and Dr. Anwar Siddiqui through joint signatures; however, in case any one of them was not present, he (Raja Muhammad Amin) used to operate such accounts. In this regard, he submitted resolutions dated 18.05.2015 and 13.05.2016 (Exh.P18/1 and Exh.P18/2) and verified his signatures thereon. He also confirmed that he had signed multiple negotiable instruments as a Trustee of PYHA Trust. He further deposed that after the demise of Agha Afzal Hussain, Qazi Humayun was appointed as Managing Trustee through a joint resolution dated 05.08.2015 (Exh.P18/3), and he himself signed the same as co-Trustee (Exh.P18/4). He also confirmed that Muhammad Masood Khan was appointed as Trustee. 12. According to him, the dispute started when Qazi Humayun allegedly co-opted Umar Malik in a collusive manner through a
8
C.R. No.340-2025 C.R No.314-2025
resolution dated 29.10.2016 and thereafter proceeded with the affairs of the Trust, which he challenged through various letters (Exh.P18/5). This continued till the passing of the impugned resolution dated 20.01.2017, wherein Malik Umar’s son was appointed as Trustee and Qazi Humayun appointed his nephew, which, according to him, is a clear conflict of interest. 13. During cross-examination, he acknowledged that Qazi Humayun’s name appears at serial No.9 in Exh.D1 and alleged that the addendum dated 23.01.2017 was registered through fraud. He further admitted: that it is the responsibility of the Managing Trustee to register the names of Trustees. 14. Now, considering the entire evidence on record, I have attended to the Trust Deed (Exh.D1), particularly Clause 14: That all or any of the Trustees and powers vested in an exercisable by the Trustees hereunder shall be capable of being performed or exercised by a majority of the Trustees thereof for, the time being and any action or decision of such majority shall be as valid and effective as it would have been if done by all the Trustees.
15. The primary clause giving rise to the present controversy is Clause 24 of the Trust Deed: That whenever on account of death or other cause, the office of a Trustee becomes vacant, the remaining Trustees shall appoint a new Trustee and if they cannot agree about the appointment of a new Trustee or fail to appoint one within a reasonable time, the court may appoint a new Trustee in accordance with law for the time being in force in this behalf and in making such appointment, the Trustees or the court shall give due weight to the wishes of the Association expressed in this behalf through
9
C.R. No.340-2025 C.R No.314-2025
resolution in accordance with its Constitution. Pending the appointment of a new Trustee, the remaining Trustees shall continue to administer the Trust as per provisions of the Constitution of the Association.
16. The above-mentioned clause provides a mechanism regarding appointment of a Trustee in case of vacancy arising due to death, resignation, or any other cause. It provides that the remaining Trustees shall appoint a new Trustee, and if they fail to do so within a reasonable time, the Court may appoint a Trustee in accordance with law. 17. The cumulative reading of these clauses demonstrates that quorum, majority, and lawful appointment are essential requirements for the validity of any decision or resolution. Besides the above-referred clauses of the trust deed, the provisions of the Trust Act, 1882, as well as the Islamabad Capital Territory Trust Act, 2020, also play a significant role in determining this issue. The new law has been enacted in the ICT primarily for the reason that the Trust Act, 1882 does not adequately cater to effective administration, financial monitoring, and evaluation of trusts. Under this new law, Chapter III deals with the administration of trusts, wherein Section 12 imposes a restriction that “no trust shall function unless it is registered under this Act.” For such registration, an application under Section 13 of the Act is required to be filed, which must be verified in terms of Section 14 by the Director through an investigating or prosecuting agency. Section 15 further provides that all immovable and movable properties must be registered in the name of the trust under the Registration Act, 1908, whereafter a certificate of registration is to be issued to the trust under Section 16 of the Act. All these provisions impose certain obligations. Chapter IV, which deals with the duties and
10
C.R. No.340-2025 C.R No.314-2025
liabilities of trustees, requires that a trustee is bound to fulfill the purpose of the trust and to obey the directions of the author of the trust given at the time of its creation, as envisaged under Section 22 of the ICT Trust Act, 2020. 18. While considering these aspects, I have also examined the definition of “registered,” which means registered with the Director under Section 2 of the Act. If this definition is read in conjunction with the concept of “instrument of trust,” defined as the instrument by which the trust is declared under Section 2(j), it becomes evident that registration of the instrument of trust is mandatory. Any subsequent amendment or appointment of trustees is required to be made through a resolution and thereafter through an addendum (deed of trust), as confirmed through Exh.DW1/6, duly registered with the Joint Sub-Registrar, Islamabad, within the mandate of the Registration Act, 1908. If this requirement is not complied with, no person is entitled to act as a trustee. Similarly, the original trust deed, Exh.D1, also lays down a complete mechanism for convening meetings and vests powers to perform or exercise any act by majority from time to time through a special resolution at a notified place, as may be mentioned in the notice issued by the Managing Trustee. If this procedure is not followed, no valid order, decision, or action can be taken within the four corners of law. 19. No doubt the entire dispute revolves around two resolutions of the Board of Trustees which have been assailed by the plaintiffs, claiming therein that by virtue of resolutions dated 20.01.2017 and 23.01.2017, the new trustees appointed in the trust are illegally appointed and all of their actions be cancelled. But the primary
11
C.R. No.340-2025 C.R No.314-2025
question raised in the defence is that the plaintiffs have no right to challenge the appointments, both of the plaintiffs namely Raja M. Amin and Dr. Ijaz Bashir are not trustee by any stretch of imagination based upon any documentary evidence including the mode and manner in which any trustee has to be appointed. In this regard, this Court has also gone through Clause 14 as well as 24 of the trust deed Exh.D1, which primarily gives a way forward to appoint any new trustees if a position has been vacant by virtue of any resignation or death of any trustee. When a particular procedure has been provided and laid down in the trust document, then no exception could be taken in any manner, as the primary factor is to protect the trust and the objectives of the trust. In this regard, the plaintiffs, in this case Dr. Ijaz Bashir and Raja Mohammad Amin are not trustee by virtue of any document. Therefore, they both have to demonstrate their case by means of evidence, and in this regard, 07 PWs have been produced from the plaintiffs’ side and their detailed aspects have been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, considering the evidence of PW-01 to PW-07 in Paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 12 in detail. When an admission has been brought on record that there is no documented resolution available, therefore, considering these aspects, the onus is upon the plaintiffs to prove their assertion on the basis of Article 117 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which they failed. As a result whereof, even assuming that trustees could be appointed impliedly, such appointment must originate from a valid resolution of the Board of Trustees in accordance with the trust deed. However, no resolution appointing Dr. Ijaz Bashir or Raja Amin has been produced on record. Even no resolution has
12
C.R. No.340-2025 C.R No.314-2025
been proved through any independent evidence. The absence of this preliminary requirement goes against the plaintiffs’ case. Despite other requirements, when any trustee has been appointed, it involves a legal responsibility and obligation, and there must be an appointment or an offer which must be accepted by the proposed trustees, followed by lawful vesting of the property, and this aspect comes under the concept of the Contract Act, 1872. But the entire evidence lacks that there was ever an offer made after a meeting of the Board of Trustees, where the offer of trusteeship through resolution passed by the Board of Trustees was accepted by the plaintiffs. Neither there is any instrument vesting trust property in them. Thus, no legal relationship of trustee ever came into existence, and this aspect was not appreciated by the courts below concurrently. In this regard, this Court has also taken advantage of a judgment reported as 2019 CLC [Karachi] 781 (Advocate General Singh Vs. Islamic Education Trust), whereby, the Honorable Sindh High Court has considered the matter in that case, where a dispute of the trustees started to deal with the affairs of the trust and the Court settled that: whether they are de jure trustees or de facto / constructive trustees, have been in conflict with each other for decades over the control of IET. They do not recognize each other as lawful trustees and have not been able to work together as the board of trustees of IET. The litigation listed in para 12 above is testament to that fact. Thus, the IET has been without a recognized board of trustees for decades. That, in my view is sufficient to conclude that the said trustees are at odds with the interest of the IET and that is reason enough to hold that directions of the Court are necessary for the administration of IET.
13
C.R. No.340-2025 C.R No.314-2025
20. Considering this principle, this Court also believes that in the present case, there is a long-standing battle between two sets of trustees, one which has been recognized, i.e., the defending managing trustee, and the plaintiffs whose appointments have not been demonstrated from any record of trust proceedings in the Board of Trustees meeting. In such a scenario, the Court has to apply strict rules as fixed in the trust document. 21. The other important aspect is to be seen with regard to pre- existing right of the plaintiffs’ in terms of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and if a declaration has to be awarded, then there must be a pre-existing right. When there is no pre-existing right, as no Board resolution was demonstrated, no registered instrument was brought on record by the plaintiffs under the Trust Act and Registration Act, as compared to the registered trustees already existing through a valid addendum trust deed on the other side, then this Court has to apply the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in terms of 2020 SCMR 202 (Abdul Razaq Vs. Abdul Ghaffar), where it was held that: “A suit filed under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, a declaration can be granted with regard to legal character or the right as to any property, however, no new right can be created in favor of plaintiff, by grant of a declaratory decree”.
Similar view has been rendered in 2022 SCMR 348 (Muhammad Jameel Vs. Abdul Ghafoor), where it was held that where plaintiff fails to establish a pre-exiting vested rights, the suit for declaration is not maintainable. 22. Hence these aspects are based upon the analogy of declaration as per section 42 of the Act of 1877, where for qualifying the same, one has to necessarily prove that he has an
14
C.R. No.340-2025…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.