Mst. MUSARRAT vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI arts — 2023 MLD 175 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. MUSARRAT VS MUHAMMAD SHAFI arts. 76, 100, 117 & 118---Limitation act (IX of 1908), art. 120---Beneficiary to prove factum of sale---Suit for declaration/permanent injunction---Petitioner/plaintiff claimed that defendant and she were legal heirs of the deceased; that their father was sole owner of the suit property at the time of his death on 04.11.1997 by virtue of sale-deed registered on 13/02/1963; that utilities were registered and bills issued in the name of the deceased; that petitioner along with other heirs of the deceased (respondents) got their names registered in the record of Excise and Taxation department; that respondent fraudulently interpolated his name in the sale deed, evidently transferred/executed in the name of the deceased---Respondent/defendant contended that property in question was originally purchased by him, wherein inadvertently name of his father was mentioned, in the first place, which mistake was corrected by way of incorporation of his name as buyer; that suit was barred by limitationas the sale deed was executed/registered in 1963 which was allegedly challenged in 2000---Trial Court decreed the suit but its judgment was reversed by the appellate Court---Validity---Three respondents were also the legal heirs of deceased who had not contested claim of the petitioner rather filed conceding written statement---Respondent appearing as witness stated in cross-examination that his name was not mentioned in the sale deed, which fact was identified by his father, who upon reading it said that 'since sale deed was in favour of the respondent, therefore, his name be mentioned'---Whereas, such view was not asserted by respondent in his written statement---Respondent was required to prove that he purchased property, paid consideration and that addition of his name thereat was validly done, but he failed to prove the same---No official witness was produced---No evidence was available that name of petitioner was added, before or after the registration of sale deed---attested copy of mutation was placed on record, whereas, neither the official record was summoned nor was the procedure for producing secondary evidence adopted---In year 1963, petitioner had only finished his studies and was on job-hunt---Source of income of the respondent at the time of alleged purchase remained unproved and nothing was placed to show possession of alleged consideration amount in the year 1963---Respondent admitted that sale deed remained in possession of his father during his life---Respondent's father had died in 1997 and suit was filed in the year 2000, after gaining knowledge of interpolation in the sale deed---Suit was filed within the period of limitation provided under art. 120 of Limitation act, 1908---Revision petition was allowed accordingly.

Mst. MUSARRAT vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI arts — 2023 MLD 175 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD