MUHAMMAD AMIN vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE S — 2022 YLR 1284 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.

MUHAMMAD AMIN VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE S. 42--- Mutation--- Suit for declaration filed by respondent claiming that land was provided on lease but petitioners fraudulently started claiming ownership on pretext of alleged oral sale in consideration of certain amount---Petitioners contested the suit alleging that respondent sold the land and received/acknowledged the consideration but unlawfully leased land of his sisters through written lease agreement and that petitioner paid the sisters as mediation which prompted respondent to challenge the sale---Suit was dismissed by Trial Court but the same was decreed by the Appellate Court---Petitioner contended that fraud was alleged in plaint against Revenue Officer but he was not made party to the plaint; that suit was decreed solely on the ground that provisions of S. 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, were not complied with; that attesting witnesses identified as Patidars and qualified as village-respectables had identified the respondent; that any irregularity in compliance of S. 42 would not render transaction void; that attesting witnesses appeared and endorsed oral sale and stated that parties were known to them; that such statement of attesting witnesses was not cross examined; that Patwari Halqa/revenue officer appeared and proved the factum of recording/ sanctioning of impugned mutations; that possession of the petitioner was an admitted fact; that respondent alleged coronary ailment as pretext for avoiding lawfully conducted sale transaction but failed to establish the fact alleged---Petitioner referred to the exhibits, showing hospital visits / medical treatment, to substantiate failure on the part of the petitioner to prove plea of alleged ailment--- Validity--- Written statement was silent regarding the alleged oral sale---No details of persons/ witnesses privy to alleged transaction were provided---No convincing evidence was led by the petitioners to prove delivery of possession pursuant to alleged transaction of oral sale---Written statement was silent---Copies of register Roznamcha Waqiati depicted that possession was delivered, but no evidence led to prove the same---Delivery of possession without receipt of consideration was not appealing to reason---Patwari Halqa admitted that signatures/thumb impression of respondent and the petitioners were not on Roznamcha Waqiati---No mention that the acquirer of alleged right/petitioner was even present before Patwari Halqa, when allegedly factum of oral sale was recorded---One of the attesting witnesses of the mutation had admitted that land was leased to the petitioners by respondent---Petitioners failed to prove that possession was delivered pursuant to oral sale---Patwari Halqa and Revenue Officer alleged that payment of consideration was not made before them---Place of payment of consideration amount was not mentioned in the written statement---Separate considerations for each mutation as mentioned in Roznamcha Waqiati were not disclosed in written statement---Witnesses differed in their statements regarding consideration, place of alleged sale and witnesses/ purchasers present at the time of alleged sale/mutation---Earlier statements as referred to in the impugned mutations could not be proved---Copy of Part-Patwar did not contain order of revenue officer---Discrepancy as to reflection of attendance of parties in Part-Patwar and Part-Sarkar remained irreconciled and substantially affected the credence of alleged transaction---Witnesses and Patwari Halqa had not even pleaded their status as Patidars---No compelling evidence was available to believe that respondent was present and properly identified for the purposes of meeting statutory requirements---Petitioners failed to prove alleged oral transaction, payment of consideration, execution of impugned mutations--- Factum of possession under arrangement of oral sale was deficient / unconvincing---Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD AMIN vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE S — 2022 YLR 1284 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR