Pir FAZAL RABBANI vs GHULAM AKBAR S — 2022 SCMR 703 SUPREME-COURT

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

Pir FAZAL RABBANI VS GHULAM AKBAR S. 42---Suit for declaration---Dispute over ownership of land---Mutation for sale of land entered into Record of rights but subsequently cancelled---Cause of action for filing the suit was that mutation for sale of the suit land in favour of, predecessor of respondents, by predecessor of the appellants, was entered on 3-6-1969 and subsequently as per endorsement in the said mutation, the mutation was cancelled on the basis that the event of transaction of sale had been cancelled---Plaintiffs-respondents produced 08 witnesses including the plaintiff---Original plaintiff appeared as a witness and produced the documentary evidence to prove the transaction of sale and entrance of mutation by Patwari as well as subsequent proceedings conducted by the revenue officials whereby it was endorsed that "bund sawal" in accordance with the procedure for 6th June 1969 had been issued in the name of the seller---Further there was an endorsement that on the request of, Member Union Council, the "bund sawal" was ordered to be issued by the Naib Tehsildar---Member Union Council appeared as a witness and stated his version, which confirmed the endorsement and proceedings of the said mutation---In copy of Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1967-1968 predecessor of respondents was not recorded as tenant or in possession over the suit land---In one khasra number, predecessor of the appellants, was recorded in possession whereas upon all the other khasra numbers other persons were recorded as cultivators (tenants) and in Column No. 12 which was "Khana Kaifiyat" it contained the endorsement that mutation was entered on 3-6-1969 whereas it was cancelled on 29-12-1971---Register Haqdaran Zameen produced for the year 1983-1984 contained the entry of ownership of predecessor of the appellants whereas predecessor of the respondents had been mentioned in possession as cultivator as "Ghair Dakheel Kaar"---If the case of the appellants was admitted that predecessor of respondents was cultivator as tenant at the time of alleged entrance of mutation that fact was not confirmed by the documentary evidence, whereas after the entrance of mutation the entry of possession of the predecessor of plaintiffs-respondents at least confirmed that they were put to possession though it was mentioned as "Ghair Dakheel Kaar", that was why the revenue officials did not mention the entry of possession on the basis of any agreement because for mentioning of that entry under any agreement they were required to attest a mutation first of that event that may be the transfer of possession under any agreement, thereafter, they could endorse the entry of possession on the basis of any mutation or agreement---Supreme Court observed that it was normal practice that revenue officials took the easy way, and normally mentioned the entry as tenant instead of attesting the mutation for any other event and mentioned that endorsement in the column of possession---Suit filed by the respondents was rightly decreed---Appeal was dismissed.

Pir FAZAL RABBANI vs GHULAM AKBAR S — 2022 SCMR 703 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 SCMR