Mehboob vs Fateh Bibi arts — 2025 YLR 2159 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.

Mehboob VS Fateh Bibi arts. 17 & 129(g)---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 39---Suit for declaration and cancellation of mutations---Denial by the defendant /beneficiary---Proof ,deficiency of---Effect---Lady/plaintiff's suit seeking cancellation of mutations claiming that she had not alienated suit-property (her inherited share) to her brother (defendant), was decreed---Petitioners (sons of deceased defendant/nephews of lady) assailed decree in favour of the respondent (lady /plaintiff) and consequently impugned mutations stood cancelled---Validity---Petitioners have failed to prove the payment of sale consideration to the respondent(lady / plaintiff), because purportedly the bargain of oral sale was struck in presence of three persons including son of the respondent /plaintiff but none of them were produced in the witness box by the petitioners so as to substantiate their stance---Concerned Patwari who entered the impugned mutation, as one of defense witness, categorically admitted that the said mutation does not bear thumb impressions of respondent (lady /plaintiff) and even her CNIC is not present on the said mutation---So much so, the revenue officer has also not been produced by the petitioners, who otherwise was necessary to be produced and no evidence showing his incapability to appear in the Court was adduced, therefore, adverse presumption under art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, would arise that the best evidence has been withheld and if the revenue officer had appeared in the witness box, he would not have supported the stance of the petitioners---Even the report was not produced by its author, so the same has rightly been adjudged to be inadmissible in evidence by the Courts below---Revision was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2159 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mehboob VS Fateh Bibi S. 115---Specific Relief act (I of 1877),Ss. 42 & 39---Suit for declaration and cancellation of mutations---Concurrent findings---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Lady/plaintiff's suit seeking cancellation of mutations claiming that she had not alienated suit-property (her inherited share) to her brother (defendant), was decreed---Petitioners (sons of deceased defendant/nephews of lady) assailed decree in favour of the respondent (lady /plaintiff) and consequently impugned mutations stood cancelled---Validity---Courts below have committed no illegality, irregularity and wrong exercise of jurisdiction, rather after evaluating evidence on record have reached to a just conclusion that the petitioners/ defendants have miserably failed to prove their case through trustworthy and reliable evidence---The impugned judgments and decrees do not suffer from any infirmity, rather law on the subject has rightly been construed and appreciated---Concurrent findings on record cannot be disturbed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S.115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908---Revision being merit-less was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2159 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mehboob VS Fateh Bibi Ss. 42 & 39---Suit for declaration and cancellation of mutations---Property transaction with an illiterate /rustic /village household lady---Only declaratory decree sought by plaintiff without seeking possession---Suit maintainability of---Lady/plaintiff's suit seeking cancellation of mutations claiming that she had not alienated suit-property (her inherited share) to her brother (defendant), was decreed---Petitioners (sons of deceased defendant/nephews of lady) assailed decree in favour of the respondent (lady /plaintiff) and consequently impugned mutations stood cancelled---Argument was that only declaratory decree was sought by the respondent/plaintiff without seeking possession, therefore, the suit was not maintainable---Validity---Plaintiff cannot simply be knocked out and deprived of his/her land on technical grounds--- If a party seeking declaration has failed to claim consequential relief, he/she should not have been non-suited on technical grounds---In the present case, the perusal of the plaint divulges that respondent (lady / plaintiff) claims herself to be owner in possession and alleges the disputed mutations a result of fraud, without consideration and without change of possession---Moreover, the property-in-dispute is an inherited property and possession of the petitioners, if any, would be considered as constructive, because the same was under their cultivation prior to the impugned mutations and would be considered as on behalf of the respondent because the petitioners are her nephews (petitioners i.e. sons of her brother/original defendant); therefore, when she has proved her claim, she is also entitled to consequential relief of possession and mere on the basis of technicalities, she cannot be knocked out---Revision was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2159 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mehboob VS Fateh Bibi Ss. 42 & 39---Suit for declaration and cancellation of mutations---Property transaction with an illiterate/rustic /village household lady---Parameters /conditions as those of a Pardanasheen lady---Lady/plaintiff's suit seeking cancellation of mutations claiming that she had not alienated suit-property (her inherited share)to her brother (defendant) was decreed---Petitioners (sons of deceased defendant/nephews of lady) assailed decree in favour of the respondent (lady /plaintiff) and consequently impugned mutations stood cancelled---Held: It has been admitted on record by the petitioners that the respondent /plaintiff is an illiterate, rustic and village household lady and her husband is also illiterate---In respect of a transaction germane to property with a pardanasheen, village household and rustic ladies certain mandatory conditions /parameters should be complied with and fulfilled in a transparent manner and through evidence of a high degree as old and illiterate ladies are entitled to the same protection which is available to the Parda observing lady under the law---However, in the present case, none of the acclaimed parameters have been met with and no such evidence, showing that the respondent /lady was having an independent advice and was fully aware and cognizant of the nature of the transaction, was brought on record by the petitioners---Revision was dismissed in limine, in circumstances .

Mehboob vs Fateh Bibi arts — 2025 YLR 2159 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR