MASEETULLAH vs NAIMATULLAH Ss — 2024 YLR 830 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

MASEETULLAH VS NAIMATULLAH Ss. 42, 54 & 55---Suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction---Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner which judgment was upheld by the Appellate Court---Claim of the appellant was that the respondent No. 1 got transferred his 04 acres land in his favour on the basis of fake sale transaction and further transferred the same in favour of respondent No.2 fraudulently---Validity---Fact of the matter was that there was a period of three years between the two disputed transactions; firstly, in favour of respondent No.1 vide Entry No. 144 dated 17.08.1991 and subsequently in favour of respondent No.2 Vide Mutation Entry No.245 dated 12.05.1994---No supporting evidence was led by respondents to show that after recording of first mutation entry in favour of respondent No.1, he was handed over possession of the disputed land of four acres---Record showed that possession of respondent No.2 was recorded in a Report of Commissioner dated 10.12.1997, which was prepared after the site inspection was done on the orders of High Court in an earlier round of litigation between the parties---Said report had been carefully considered and though it did state that the possession rested with respondent, but at the same time it was also mentioned that it was not known when and how he obtained it---No objection to such Commissioner's Report was preferred by either party---Evidence of the appellant, that possession was forcefully taken by respondent No.2 before the said inspection, could not be falsified by the respondents in her cross-examination---Concerned Tapedar in his evidence had stated that since the year 1994 respondent No.2 was paying the revenue dues, but to a specific question he showed his ignorance that prior to year 1994 he had no knowledge about the payment of revenue dues---Logical conclusion was that if the respondent No.1 had purchased the disputed land through due process and was given a valid possession of the same, then he would have started paying the dues after obtaining cultivating possession of the disputed land, but since the transaction itself was bogus, thus there was no record that respondent No.1 was paying cess/dues after 1991; because no lawful possession was handed over to respondents and the same was obtained through illegal means by both the respondents 1 and 2---Conclusion was that the respondents had failed to prove that the disputed land was sold/ transferred by the appellant to respondent No.1 and subsequently by the latter to respondent No.2, after following a due process---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

MASEETULLAH vs NAIMATULLAH Ss — 2024 YLR 830 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR