SHAFI MUHAMMAD (DECEASED) vs Mst — 2023 CLC 49 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

SHAFI MUHAMMAD (DECEASED) VS Mst. JANAT S.11---Respondents filed suit for declaration against petitioners in 1994 claiming that suit property was held in the name of deceased father/husband of the petitioners as benamidar---Petitioners filed suit for possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction against respondents in 1996---Respondents' suit was concurrently decreed and petitioners' suit was dismissed concurrently---Petitioners contended that suit land was not an evacuee property; that the same was a resumed property and was then granted by the Land Commissioner, therefore, reliance on the original allotment in favour of deceased father/husband of respondents was of no consequence; that suit property was allotted and was always in the name of the father of the petitioners; that respondents fraudulently got mutated in their names by showing themselves as legal heirs of their father and concealing the true facts which was then rectified/corrected at petitioners' request by Assistant Commissioner in 1994; and that respondents suit was barred under S.11 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967---Validity---Held, it was gone unexplained as to why applicants approached the Assistant Commissioner in 1994 for change of Foti Khata badal when admittedly their father had expired in 1978; and as to why they never filed any civil suit in 1996 (after two years of respondents' suit) and claimed the possession of the land---Transfer of the suit land in favour of respondents was done in 1980---Evidence led on behalf of the petitioners was neither confidence inspiring, nor convincing so as to believe their version---Respondents had led evidence to establish that they were always in possession of the land and produced all original documents, receipts of payments and also original affidavit of the petitioners' father submitted to Assistant Commissioner and stating therein that land was held in his name for the only reason that father/husband of respondents had expired when his children were minors---Evidence led by the respondents was convincing and had not been shaken in cross-examination---Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was non-speaking, without any independent reasoning, without jurisdiction, without showing whether the aggrieved parties were heard or not; and comprising over two lines only accepting the contention of the petitioners---Petitioners kept silent as for a long time and even after getting knowledge regarding the affidavit of their father in favour of respondent, neither challenged the same nor did they lead any evidence to disprove it---Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

SHAFI MUHAMMAD (DECEASED) vs Mst — 2023 CLC 49 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLC