Muhammad Younis vs Mst — 2024 MLD 728 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.

Muhammad Younis VS Mst. Dolat Bibi art. 95 ---Punjab Land Revenue act (XVII of 1967) , S. 42 (7)---Specific Relief act (I of 1877) , Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Fraud, alleging of ---Limitation---Evasive denial---Scope---article 95 of the Limitation act, 1908, provides that while seeking some relief, if fraud is alleged, the period of limitation will be three years which will commence to be computed from the date of knowledge ---Date of knowledge, in the present case, as per version of the petitioners/plaintiffs was three months prior to the institution of the suit, which could not be rebutted by the other side through solid and cogent evidence rather it was only evasively denied while submitting written statement and it was a settled principle of law that evasive denial was not a denial---Therefore, in the light of article 95 of the Limitation act 1908, the suit instituted by the petitioners was well within time---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the both the Courts below , consequently the suit instituted by the petitioners stood decreed as prayed for---Revision filed by the plaintiffs was allowed, in circumstances . Citation Name: 2024 MLD 728 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Younis VS Mst. Dolat Bibi S. 115---Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 42 (7)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) , Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope ---Mis-reading /non-reading of evidence---Validity---Both the Courts below failed to adjudicate upon the matter in hand by appreciating law on the subject; thus, the Courts below misread and non-read evidence of the parties and when the position was as such, High Court was vested with ample jurisdiction and authority to undo the concurrent findings in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the both the Courts below , consequently the suit instituted by the petitioners stood decreed as prayed for---Revision filed by the plaintiffs was allowed, in circumstances . Citation Name: 2024 MLD 728 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Younis VS Mst. Dolat Bibi S. 42 (7)---Specific Relief act (I of 1877) , Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Mutation entry, challenging of Possession of the party---Proof---Respondents / defendants failed to establish by leading unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence that the possession of the suit- property was delivered in pursuance of the disputed sale mutations, rather it was admitted and established fact on record that the possession was with them in pursuance of purported pledge mutation and not being owner of the suit Land---Said fact was also an admitted one that one of the respondents (deceased) was a Patwari of the area, so if for the sake of arguments it was admitted that the respondents were in possession of the suit property, it could not be ruled out that the said respondent(Patwari) managed the entry of possession in Khasra Girdawri against the physical possession at spot---Thus, the disputed sale mutations in favour of the respondents could be result of collusion with the revenue staff---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the both the Courts below , consequently the suit instituted by the petitioners stood decreed as prayed for---Revision filed by the plaintiffs was allowed, in circumstances . Citation Name: 2024 MLD 728 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Younis VS Mst. Dolat Bibi S. 42 (7)---Specific Relief act (I of 1877) , Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Sale Mutations---Proof---Subsection (7) of S. 42 of Punjab Land Revenue act, 1967, binds the Revenue Officer, who is going to attest the mutation, to ensure the presence of a person whose right is going to be acquired by such transaction---Said provision of law also requires the identification of such person by two respectable persons, however, in the present case, neither the disputed sale mutations carry signatures or thumb impressions of the vendors/petitioners nor the petitioners/vendors were identified at the time of attestation of the mutation and even concerned Lumberdar was not produced by the respondents/defendants---all said facts establish the non-appearance of the petitioners/plaintiffs and non-identification at the time of attestation of the disputed sale mutations; therefore, the disputed sale mutations were attested in violation of subsection (7) of S. 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue act, 1967---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the both the Courts below , consequently the suit instituted by the petitioners stood decreed as prayed for---Revision filed by the plaintiffs was allowed, in circumstances . Citation Name: 2024 MLD 728 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Younis VS Mst. Dolat Bibi S. 42---Specific Relief act (I of 1877) , Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Mutation entry---Scope ---Sale transaction---Proof---Mutation entry is not a document of title, and of itself does not confer any right, title or interest, and the burden of proof lies upon the person, in whose favour it was attested to establish the validity and genuineness of transfer in his/her favour---If the foundation is illegal and defective then entire structure built on such foundation would have no value in the eyes of law---Once a mutation is challenged the party that relies on such mutation(s) is bound to revert to the original transaction and to prove such original transaction which resulted in the entry or attestation of such mutation(s) in dispute---However, in the present case, the respondents / defendants had failed to plead and prove the time, date, place and names of witnesses in whose presence such original transaction of sale took place inter se the petitioners/ plaintiffs and respondents / defendants because the written statement of the respondents was silent in said regard---Respondents failed to establish their case that the disputed mutations were sanctioned legally---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the both the Courts below , consequently the suit instituted by the petitioners stood decreed as prayed for---Revision filed by the plaintiffs was allowed, in circumstances .

Muhammad Younis vs Mst — 2024 MLD 728 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD