MUHAMMAD MANZOOR vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI First Sched — 2025 PLD 724 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 MANZOOR VS MUHAMMAD SHAFI First Sched., art.91---Mutation, challenge to---Limitation---Scope---Mutation is not an instrument in the context of art. 91 of the Limitation act, 1908---Mutation records the effect of change in the ownership in fact caused by virtue of a legal transaction, effected through written document for the purposes of art. 91 of the act, 1908---Mutation is not the document of title but evidence thereof---Mutation in-fact embodies a transaction and an effect extended thereto for the purposes of revenue record---In essence mutation is the progeny, cause and effect of the transaction(s) and not predecessor thereto. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 724 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD MANZOOR VS MUHAMMAD SHAFI Ss. 39 & 42---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Arts. 91 & 120---Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.19 & 19-A---Declaration against void mutations, sought---Question as to whether cancellation or declaration was to be sought against a void mutation---Limitation for seeking cancellation and declaration stated---Mutation is not an instrument, therefore, Art. 91 of Limitation Act, 1908 would not be applicable and instead a declaratory suit should be filed, limitation for which is six years as per Art. 120 thereof---Predecessor of the respondents filed a suit on 07.05.2010 for declaration and permanent injunction, seeking invalidation of different mutations entered in 1998 without his knowledge or consent by claiming the knowledge of the same from 07.03.2007---He claimed he never sold the property nor facilitated the Roznamcha-Waqiati entries---Trial Court decreed the suit, and the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of Trial Court---Petitioner/defendant then filed present civil revision, arguing primarily on the ground of limitation under Art. 91 & Art. 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Core question requiring determination before the High Court was as to "whether the suit for declaration, challenging void mutations recorded without the plaintiff's consent or knowledge, was barred by limitation under Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908, or whether Article 120 applied in light of the alleged date of knowledge, rendering the suit within time"---Held: Notably no evidence was brought on record to substantiate knowledge qua impugned mutations, before 07.03.2007, when knowledge qua impugned mutations was alleged---It was important aspect of the matter that the suit was for declaration substantially and not specifically for seeking cancellation of mutations---Multiple causes of action were available and even if cause of action was taken from 07.03.2007, pleaded as the date of having knowledge of impugned mutations, still suit was within six years, and Art. 120 of Limitation Act, 1908 was attracted---With regards to the issue of applicability of Art. 91 of Limitation Act, 1908, same was not attracted to the present case as mutation was not an instrument as per settled law---In another aspect of the matter, facts alleged depicted that declaration was sought against void and unenforceable transaction(s) of sale, which transactions, in wake of denial, were not classifiable as voidable transactions under the scope of Ss. 19 & 19-A of the Contract Act, 1872; factum of extending consent to alleged transactions and execution of mutations in the first place was not alleged---Since declaration, being the primary and fundamental relief, was sought therefore S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and not the S. 39 thereof was attracted---Declaration of rights, allegedly prejudiced upon execution of mutations, was sought and that was within six years of the accrual of case of action, bringing Art. 120 in focus---In the present case, respondent No.1 had rightly sought declaration against void transactions---Even otherwise evidence of official witnesses is not convincing enough to dislodge allegations of fraud and deception exercised for procuring execution of impugned mutations regarding underlying transactions of sale---Petitioner failed to prove underlying transactions, payment of consideration, recording of Roznamcha-Waqiati and execution of mutations; aforesaid requirements become more pressing in the context that respondent No.1 was an illiterate person, who, admittedly, was not accompanied by any of his relatives at the time of noting on Roznamcha-Waqiati and execution of mutations---Petitioner produced uncertified copies of Khasra Girdawari's through statement of counsel after completion of evidence and cross examination of the witnesses produced, which were inadmissible in evidence---Once underlying transaction was not proved, simplicitor, impugned mutations were ineffective and insufficient to refute the title of the respondent No.1/plaintiff---Civil revision being devoid of merits was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 724 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD MANZOOR VS MUHAMMAD SHAFI arts.72, 117 & 120---Document---Proof---Documents tendered through statement of counsel after completion of evidence and cross-examination of the witnesses produced, are inadmissible in evidence.

MUHAMMAD MANZOOR vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI First Sched — 2025 PLD 724 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD