| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 970 2003 SLD 970 2003 SCMR 810 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 1790-L of 2000, decided on 12th March, 2002. (On Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 23-6-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in R.S.A. No. 872 of 1977)
QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad .Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with S. Abul Aasim Jaferi ,Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Ch. Abdul Wahid Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab for
Respondents
Civil Petition No. 1790-L of 2000, decided on 12th March, 2002. (On Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 23-6-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in R.S.A. No. 872 of 1977)
QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad .Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with S. Abul Aasim Jaferi ,Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Ch. Abdul Wahid Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab for
Respondents
SAEE by Legal Heirs and 2 others
VS
Mst. SULTAN BIBI by Legal Heirs and 14 others
Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)
Section: 45
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section: 54
West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S.45---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.54---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Registered sale-deed---Preference over oral mutation of sale---Mutation of oral sale, setting aside of---Failure to invoke remedies before Revenue hierarchy---Plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of suit land on the basis of mutation of oral sale for payment of consideration accompanied by possession---Mutation, however, could not be attested on account of conviction of the owners of the suit-land in a murder case and the same was cancelled---Owners of the suit property sold the same to the defendants vide registered sale-deeds---Plea raised by the plaintiffs was that such oral sale would take precedence over a subsequent sale executed through registered sale deeds and the mutation in favour of the plaintiffs could not be brushed aside simply, for the reason that the mutation was not attested---Validity---Appellate Court and High Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the witnesses of plaintiffs had made discrepant and inconsistent statements regarding oral sale and passing of consideration to the owners which could not be believed---Oral sale and unattested mutation effected in lieu of the same when taken into consideration in juxtaposition to registered sale-deeds and subsequent attested mutations, the latter would prevail and get precedence over the former---Plaintiffs did not choose to challenge the mutations attested subsequent to the registered sale-deeds before the Revenue hierarchy which was the legal course available to them according to law---No misreading and non-appraisal of evidence was found in the concurrent findings of two Appellate Courts---Judgment and decree passed by the High Court was maintained as the plaintiffs failed to point out any illegality---Leave to appeal was refused. ORDER ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.-Petitioners seek leave to appeal against impugned judgment dated 23-6-2000 passed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.S.A. No.872 of 1977 whereby the same was issued. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that agricultural land measuring 201 Kanals,…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492