Citation Name: 2023 PLD 380 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. KANEEZA BIBI vs SABIR HUSSAIN Ss

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

Citation Name: 2023 PLD 380 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. KANEEZA BIBI VS SABIR HUSSAIN Ss. 39 & 42---Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 42---Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, R. 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 71---Suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation--- Consideration, not proved---Hearsay evidence---Scope---Plaintiff assailed the validity of sale mutation entered in favour of the defendant---Trial Court decreed the suit whereas Appellate Court dismissed the suit---Validity---Preferred witnesses as per S. 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, i.e. the lamberdar or the members of union councils were not present at the time when concerned revenue officer had allegedly obtained signatures of the parties---Revenue officer had never appeared to depose in favour of the mutation or face cross-examination---Alleged witnesses of agreement to sell had never seen the seller receiving any payment---Deed writer had also admitted that he was not witness of payment of consideration---Judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court was set aside while that of Trial Court was upheld---Revision petition was allowed. Citation Name: 2023 PLD 380 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. KANEEZA BIBI VS SABIR HUSSAIN S. 42---Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, R. 34---Making of that part of periodical records which relates to land-owners---Roznamcha Waqiati to be maintained by the Patwari---Scope---Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 and R. 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968 clearly reflect that unless the mutation is of inheritance or it is followed by a registered deed or it is being incorporated on an order of the Court, the same is required to be caused in presence of the person whose right has been acquired and it is necessary that such person is identified by two respectable persons preferably Lambardar, Member Union Committee, Union Council or Town Committee---In the absence of fulfillment of the said requirement of law, the factum of entry in the record cannot carry any presumption of truth---Mere entry in the diary or the relevant page of the diary is not primary evidence, especially when the revenue officer effecting the entry has not himself produced the daily diary before the Court and he has not faced the cross-examination of the rival party. Citation Name: 2023 PLD 380 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. KANEEZA BIBI VS SABIR HUSSAIN arts. 117 & 188---Onus of proof---Onus is normally on the one who asserts---Person seeking relief fails when he has not led evidence in his support---Where both the parties have led their respective evidence, the Court has to evaluate the evidence on the balance of probabilities and the case is to be decided in favour of one party, unless the evidence of rival arises to the same degree of cogency as is required to discharge the burden in civil matters. Citation Name: 2023 PLD 380 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. KANEEZA BIBI VS SABIR HUSSAIN S. 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17 & 71--- Suit for declaration--- Consideration, proof of--- Scope--- Payment of consideration is something that can be seen, therefore, there should be some reliable statement(s) of the witnesses who can confirm that they have seen payment being made by the purchaser to the seller.

Citation Name: 2023 PLD 380 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. KANEEZA BIBI vs SABIR HUSSAIN Ss — 2023 PLD 380 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD