Citation Name: 2024 CLC 1085 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case YOUSUF vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR 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: 2024 CLC 1085 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case YOUSUF VS MUHAMMAD AKBAR Ss.42 & 54---Balochistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.52---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120---Suit for declaration and injunction---Mutation---Presumption of correctness---Fact, proof of---Onus to prove---Respondents / plaintiffs assailed mutation in question on the plea that it was a result of fraud and collusion---Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently decided the matter in favour of respondents / plaintiffs---Validity---Final attestation of mutation was held in year 2001 in presence of predecessor-in-interest of respondents / plaintiffs but they did not raise any objection at the time of final attestation---Record of rights, under S. 52 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, carried presumption of truth---Strong evidence was required to rebut the allegation and there was no evidence on record that mutation entries were made in the name of petitioner / defendant with collaboration of Revenue staff---There was no evidence brought on record that mutation entries were not conducted in accordance with law---Both the Courts below erred to draw the conclusion that burden of proof was on beneficiary of mutation on whose name entries were made---Such conclusion was against the provision of S.52 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967---Mutation entries carried presumption of correctness and could not be lightly reversed in absence of strong evidence in rebuttal---Burden of proof was on the party claiming title and possession of property---Party who desired a judgment from Court of competent jurisdiction in his favour was to discharge the burden on truthful and consistent evidence---High Court set aside concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below as the same were result of misreading and non-reading of evidence resultantly suit filed by respondents / plaintiff was dismissed---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 CLC 1085 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case YOUSUF vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR Ss — 2024 CLC 1085 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC