PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

GUL MUHAMMAD vs ZULFIQAR arts — 2023 YLRN 27 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation
2023 YLRN 27 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2023
Parties
GUL MUHAMMAD vs ZULFIQAR arts
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 54---P; S. 42---M

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

Judgment text as reported

GUL MUHAMMAD VS ZULFIQAR arts. 17, 79, 117, 118 & 129(g)---Transfer of Property act (IV of 1882), S.54---Punjab Land Revenue act (XVII of 1967), S. 42---Mutation---Suit for declaration---Respondent/ plaintiff that he was the owner of suit property; that he had never sold his property through mutation and had never received amount of Rs.200,000/-; and that said mutation of 1994 and subsequent mutation were illegal---Petitioners / defendants submitted written statement contending that property had been sold to them by the respondent after receiving valuable consideration; that he appeared before the revenue hierarchy for the purpose of attestation of mutation; that the said mutation was subsequently misplaced which fact was reported to the assistant Commissioner concerned by the Halqa Patwari and the fresh mutation was prepared---Suit was concurrently decreed---Validity---Petitioner stated in cross-examination that he did not remember the exact date/month/year when he had purchased the suit property from the plaintiff---No Lambardar/ Member of the Union Council was present---Witnesses of the mutation in question who were alive had not appeared as witnesses---Then Halqa Patwari, despite being alive was also not summoned by the petitioner to prove the mutation in question---Petitioner through his oral/documentary evidence failed to discharge the onus to prove sale of property through the testimony of reliable marginal witnesses by not producing despite they being admittedly alive/available--- Copy of Khasra Girdawari showed the suit property as being in possession of the respondent---Petitioners failed to bring on record any details pertaining to the sale of the suit property in their favour---No Rapat Roznamcha was produced either before the Trial Court which could have suggested that the transaction did actually take place---Petitioners were guilty of withholding their best evidence and naturally an adverse presumption could be drawn against the petitioners on the basis thereof---Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English