Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2366 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Abdur Rehman Khan vs Shafqat Ali Khan 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 YLR 2366 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Abdur Rehman Khan VS Shafqat Ali Khan Ss. 39 & 42---Suit for declaration and cancellation of sale mutation---Plaintiffs/respondents claimed that they were owner in possession of the suit land being legal heirs of their deceased father and the mutation of one kanal land in favour of defendant/petitioner was wrong and liable to be cancelled---Suit was decreed by the Trial Court---Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal but same was dismissed---Validity---It was an admitted fact between the parties through evidence that at the time of sale of land in favour of the mosque i.e. 1961-62 a mutation had also been entered in favour of mosque by predecessor of respondents and petitioner but said mutation could not be attested because of resistance offered by numbers of other sects which had historically been living in the area in overwhelming majority, and that it was for said reason that the mutation could only be effected in favour of the mosque---Plaintiffs had although shown total unawareness about the disputed mutation in their plaint and stated that same had been the result of fraud and collusion of the Revenue Officials and that they had not effected any mutation in favour of petitioner but while appearing in the Court as witness, plaintiff No.2 took a different stance and admitted the attestation of mutation but denied receipt of consideration---Defendant No.2, who was brother of petitioner, had contested the suit of plaintiffs/ respondents Nos.1 & 2 and owned the entry and attestation of mutation and supported the stance of petitioner/defendant No.1 as raised in written statement of the latter---While appearing in Court, said petitioner had however taken a different stance---From analysis of the evidence so produced, it had been established that petitioner and father of respondents had earlier sold two kanals land in favour of mosque in the year 1961-62 but in respect thereof a mutation could not be attested in favour of the mosque despite the fact that said mutation had been entered with Patwari Halqa at relevant time from both the brothers to the extent of one kanal land each---Subsequent mutation No. 10671 attested on 26.09.1997 had been attested by the plaintiffs in favour of petitioner in the presence of two marginal witnesses---Record showed that father of plaintiffs had earlier sold one Kanal land in favour of mosque beside one Kanal land sold to such mosque by petitioner---Two Courts below had not been able to read categorical admissions of witnesses of plaintiffs in respect of the earlier sale transaction as well as entry of mutation in Patwar Khana---Said mutation No. 3103 entered on 28.03.1961 had though been owned by Patwari Halqa in his statement but same could not be exhibited in his statement as the Civil Court had ordered on 22.06.2006 that attested copy of such mutation should be produced instead of bringing and exhibiting rejected mutation (Parth) in statement of Patwari Halqa---Fact remained that such transaction had categorically been admitted in closing lines of cross-examination of a witness---Vide mutation No. 8895 attested on 15.06.1988 in relevant Mauza, petitioner had transferred an area of two Kanals in favour of mosque---Said mutation had been entered on the information of father of plaintiffs who was also a marginal witness thereto---Petitioner had stated in his written statement that father of petitioner had directed him to execute mutation in favour of mosque for the amount of consideration that had also been received by him and that fact had stood proved by giving cumulative effect to all the pieces of evidence which also included admissions of plaintiffs' witnesses--- Moreover, it was not difficult to discern, on the basis of preponderant evidence, as to what was the actual consideration due to which all the three (03) brothers i.e. respondents Nos. 1 to 3 had attested mutation in favour of petitioner---Respondent No.3, who was defendant No.2, in the suit had also given similar narrations in his written statement against his own interest which written statement had also been owned by him and exhibited in his statement before stating that mutation in favour of petitioner had wrongly been entered and attested---Such averments in his written statement might well be considered for the reason that such written statement had not been disowned by the witness of defendant---Same had rather been owned by exhibiting it---Besides, plaintiff No.2, while appearing in Court had admitted affixation of signatures on the mutation---Revision petition was allowed by setting aside the judgments passed by two Courts below.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2366 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Abdur Rehman Khan vs Shafqat Ali Khan Ss — 2024 YLR 2366 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR