NAZIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Ss — 2025 CLC 32 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.

NAZIR AHMAD VS MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Ss. 42 & 39---Suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation ---Genuineness of impugned- mutation---Proof---Deficiency---Petitioners/ defendants assailed judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent / plaintiff by the District Court while reversing dismissal of suit by the Civil Court---Claim of the respondent / plaintiff was that he is owner of suit-property, however, the petitioners / defendants managed verbal mutation (the 'mutation') in their favour in connivance with revenue officials---Defence set-up by the petitioners / defendants in their pleading include genuineness of the mutation---Validity---Record reveal that though the relevant Tehsildar and Patwari appeared as witnesses of defendants, however, mutation-in-question was witnessed by lambardar and Patidar, who were never produced by the petitioners ; somehow, the lambardar appeared from the respondent-side as Plaintiff's Witness and he denied his signatures on the mutation as well as passing of the mutation in his presence; his evidence remained coherent during cross-examination---There was no explanation on record for not producing the second preferred witness i.e. Patidar---Revenue law and the rules framed thereunder prefer mutation to be sanctioned in the presence of lambardar and respectable(s) of the relevant village, having clear rationale that such transactions have some inviolability and when required such respectable(s) can depose accordingly---In course of evidence, Tehsildar and Patwari as DWs stated that lambardar identified the respondent and witnessed the mutation, who already denied the event when he appeared as Plaintiff's Witness---Tehsildar or Patwari during the trial could not explain the reasons for not bringing pert-sarkar with them---No application for comparison of signatures of lambardar (Plaintiff's Witness) on the mutation was instituted---On the other hand, the respondent / plaintiff stood by his pleadings in examination-in-chief, who was cross-examined but his answers to all the questions put to him remained reasonable---Respondent/plaintiff, inter alia, deposed that the petitioners were the part of gang of land grabbers; his statement was supported by the lambardar as a Plaintiff Witness, through coherent evidence---Petitioners had failed to convince as to any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the District Court warranting interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

NAZIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Ss — 2025 CLC 32 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC