Mst. SAHIB KHATOON alias SABAN vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN (Deceased) O — 2024 CLC 1596 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. SAHIB KHATOON alias SABAN VS MUHAMMAD RAMZAN (Deceased) O.II, R.2 & O.IX, R.9(1)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.129(e)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 55---Presumption of regularity attached to official documents---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of immoveable property---Fraud---Proof---Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the vires of registered sale deed on the basis of fraud as the respondent/defendant was tenant over suit property and was paying share of produce---Later on defendant disclosed the factum of alleged sale deed and mutation by stating that petitioner had no concern with the suit property---Defendant/respondent contested the suit on factual and legal grounds---Principle of regularity available under Art. 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was attached to the registered sale deed in question as the same was executed and attested by officials in performance of their regular duty---Though, the same was rebuttable but the plaintiff had absolutely failed to rebut the presumption attached to it---Petitioner had not only failed to implead revenue officials as party to the suit but had also failed to bring evidence with regard to alleged connivance of revenue officials in respect of registered sale deed---Therefore, there was nothing before the Court in the shape of evidence or documents to overlook the act of not impleading the revenue officials---In addition to the above, the petitioner had not denied her thumb impression on the disputed sale deed and even did not move any application seeking comparison of the same with the admitted one---Petitioner had only relied upon her solitary statement and no independent witness had been produced in that regard---Moreover, mere assertion of fraud and misrepresentation is not sufficient but the same has to be proved by the person who asserts as such---Petitioner could not substantiate the stance taken up by her and could not chain the links of alleged fraud played against her---As against that, the respondents by producing the marginal witnesses and identifier had successfully fulfilled the requirement of Arts. 17 & 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Apart from the above, it had also been admitted by the petitioner that she earlier instituted a suit on the same subject matter, which was dismissed for non-prosecution, thus, in such scenario, the present suit was barred under O.II, R.2 & O. IX, R. 9(1), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908---Revision was accordingly dismissed. Citation Name: 2024 CLC 1596 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Mst. SAHIB KHATOON alias SABAN VS MUHAMMAD RAMZAN (Deceased) Ss. 42 & 55---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Arts.91 & 120---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of immoveable property---Limitation---Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the vires of registered sale deed on the basis of fraud as the respondent/defendant was tenant over suit property and was paying share of produce---Later on defendant disclosed the factum of alleged sale deed and mutation by stating that petitioner had no concern with the suit property---Defendant/respondent contested the suit on factual and legal grounds---Trial Court decreed the suit but in appeal, the appellate Court set-aside the decree and while framing additional issues, the case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh after recording evidence on additional issues---Trial Court again decreed the suit, whereas the appellate Court set aside the decree and dismissed the suit---Validity---Admittedly the suit for cancellation in the form of declaration of the disputed registered sale deed was instituted on 07.07.2001, which was after a lapse of almost 21 years, therefore, the same was not within the prescribed period of limitation of three years as required by Art. 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908 or even six years as prescribed under Art. 120 of the Act---No explanation, whatsoever had been provided by the petitioner for the delay in filing the suit before the Trial Court despite not being in possession of the suit property---Furthermore the petitioner despite being not in possession of the disputed property had failed to claim relief of possession in her plaint, which was fatal for her cause---Revision petition was accordingly dismissed. Citation Name: 2024 CLC 1596 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Mst. SAHIB KHATOON alias SABAN VS MUHAMMAD RAMZAN (Deceased) Judgments of Trial Court and Appellate Court---Inconsistency in findings---Preference---In case of inconsistency between the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, the findings of the latter must be given preference in the absence of any cogent reason to the contrary. Citation Name: 2024 CLC 1596 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Mst. SAHIB KHATOON alias SABAN VS MUHAMMAD RAMZAN (Deceased) Ss. 42 & 55---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of immoveable property---Acquiescence, principle of---Record showed that the act of the petitioner of allowing the respondents to remain in possession of the suit property attracted the principle of acquiescence on her part in the respondent's title to the suit property thereby allowing him to deal with it as exclusive owner and for developing it at his own expense over a period of time while within the knowledge of the plaintiff, because she could not bring on record anything showing that the share of produce used to be paid to her by the respondent---Another aspect in the case was that petitioner in her plaint stated that the disputed registered sale deed was attested by the respondent in his favour in connivance with revenue officials, however, no revenue official was impleaded or arrayed as defendant by the petitioner in the suit---Revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

Mst. SAHIB KHATOON alias SABAN vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN (Deceased) O — 2024 CLC 1596 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC