Mst. NOOR ELAHI vs MUHAMMAD ABBAS S — 2022 YLR 2383 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. NOOR ELAHI VS MUHAMMAD ABBAS S. 42---Cause of action---Every new entry in the revenue record would give fresh cause of action to the plaintiff and adverse entries therein even if were allowed to remain unchallenged did not necessarily extinguish the right of the party against whom such entry was renewed. arts. 117 &118---Beneficiary to prove the case---Sale mutation recorded in favourof alleged purchaser---Sale and receiving of consideration was denied by the owner---Was to be established on record that sale price had been passed on to the vendor and in default thereof, sale could not be considered to have completed---Was required to lead solid evidence that the petitioner had sold out the suit land and received its price as a whole or in part. Ss. 42 & 52---although summary proceedings conducted by revenue officials were admissible under art. 49 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and some presumption was also attached thereto, but the same was always rebuttable. Technicalities---Suit could not be defeated merely due to its bad form---Court, in aid of justice, vests with unfettered powers to provide, mould and grant adequate relief even if not claimed through the contents of the plaint. art. 120---Mutation challenged after 11 years of sanction---Limitation---Document procured by playing fraud, could be challenged at any stage of time. O. VII, R. 11---Suit for declaration without seeking relief of possession---Maintainability---Where plaint explained that the suit land was under lease and that the same was mutated on basis of fraud, simple suit for declaration was maintainable. S. 49---Roznamzha Waqiati---Bar against conferring title---Roznamcha Waqiati was not per se admissible and it was not a document to confer title---Exhibition of document and proof of its contents were two different aspects and the latter was more relevant and important. art. 30---Sale mutation---admission before Revenue Officer as to receipt of price---Scope---Mere admission as to receipt of sale price before attesting Officer could not be taken as conclusive proof. art. 59---Thumb-impression expert, report of---Evidential value---Opinion of expert was always a weak type of evidence and was not that of conclusive nature---Expert's testimony recorded in the case in hand could not be treated as substitute of available direct evidence---Court could not base findings merely on expert's opinion. S. 42---Mutation per se was not deed of title and the party relying upon its entries was always bound to prove the transaction reflected therein. arts. 30, 49, 59, 79, 117 & 118---Punjab Land Revenue act (XVII of 1967), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Sale mutation--- Thumb-impression, denial of--- Petitioner / plaintiff (allegedly folk/illiterate lady) claimed that she leased out the suit land to respondents but they managed to transfer the same in their favour vide oral sale mutation; that neither she sold nor received any consideration---Respondents/defendants contested the suit on ground that petitioner along with her husband and attesting witnesses appeared before Revenue Officer who recorded their statements and petitioner affixed her thumb-impressions and sanctioned the subject mutation---Trial Court decreed the suit but appellate Court reversed the judgment of Trial Court---Validity---Mutation proceedings were initiated primarily for fiscal purposes to collect the land revenue and was only meant for maintaining the record---Such proceedings were conducted summarily which could not be considered as judicial proceedings to determine right/title qua immovable property---Petitioner's witnesses including her husband explicitly supported her version and one of the witnesses stated that Lumberdar prior to his death told him that Patwari had managed his thumb-impression while cheating him and that petitioner according to his knowledge never sold out the subject land---Mutation contained sale transaction and as such being the document pertaining to financial liability required to be strictly proved---Examination of Tehsildar out of its signatories by the beneficiary was not enough to meet with the legal requirement---Marginal witnesses appeared as witnesses and created serious doubts in veracity of disputed mutation--- Father of respondents/ beneficiaries while appearing as witness stated during cross-examination that petitioner/lady was about 15/16 years old when she was paid in 1981 consideration of currency notes valuing rupees 500/1000---Roznamcha Waqiati was not having recorded statement of its maker---Expert opined the similarity of thumb-impression but also endorsed that by putting another thumb-impression over the already existed thumb-mark available on the subject mutation, it was tried to be impaired, thus made the report doubt-ful---Suit was within time----Revision petition was allowed accordingly.

Mst. NOOR ELAHI vs MUHAMMAD ABBAS S — 2022 YLR 2383 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR