Mst. ANWAR MAI vs GHULAM SARWAR art — 2022 MLD 1112 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Mst. ANWAR MAI VS GHULAM SARWAR art.120---Mutation, cancellation of---Maxim "allegans contraria non est audiendus (a person who alleges things contradictory to each other is not to be heard)---First suit for declaration and in alternate the specific performance was filed by the petitioner in life time of her father and second suit for inheritance and cancellation of mutation was filed after his demise---Both suits were consolidated and concurrently dismissed---Petitioner contended that she was owner in possession and entitled for 1/5th share out of her deceased father's property; that the impugned mutation in favour of the respondents (her brothers) was against law/fact and was got sanctioned on basis of alleged tamleek with the intention to deprive the petitioner from her legal/shari share; that written statement filed by the respondents in the first suit could not constitute an admission on part of the deceased father of the parties regarding the impugned mutation as such written statement was never signed by their father on his own; and that no limitation would run in the matters of inheritance---Validity---Petitioner had laid claim in her first suit on the basis of purported oral sale by father in her favour and arrayed her father as first party in the list of defendants---Suit property in the first suit was exactly the same share i.e., 1/5th of the total property of deceased father, which she later claimed as her share in inheritance forming subject matter of the second suit---Perusal of evidence brought forth glaring/stark contradictions on the surface, which had been duly analysed/appreciated by both the courts below---Contradictions in evidence indicated that the petitioner's depositions in evidence were not trustworthy---Such contradictions were not minor discrepancies on trivial issues but went to the roots of the matter and shook the basic stance of the petitioner---High Court observed that when the entire evidence of the petitioner in both suits was read as a whole, it appeared that the ring of truth was conspicuously missing on account of glaring contradictions---Sufficient/cogent evidence proved that the impugned mutation/tamleek was legally made and the same was never objected to by the deceased father during his life time---Presence of the father of the parties during the proceedings of the first suit before the Trial Court was not denied by petitioner's witnesses---Witnesses admit that they came to know about the impugned mutation through the halqa patwari, within 7 to 8 days after the same was sanctioned and the suits were instituted after 12 years---Suit was barred by limitation.

Mst. ANWAR MAI vs GHULAM SARWAR art — 2022 MLD 1112 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 MLD