| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 781 2013 SLD 781 2013 CLC 1048 |
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No.25 of 2006, decision dated: 5-11-2012
KHALID MEHMOOD, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Revision No.25 of 2006, decision dated: 5-11-2012
KHALID MEHMOOD, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
M. AKRAM
VS
RAZIA SULTANA
Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)
Section: 42
Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)
Section: 42
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.VI,R.7
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42,54,9
(a) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)-------S. 42---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) Ss.42, 54 & 9---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.113 ---Long-standing revenue entries---Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession was decreed by Trial Court but said decree was set aside by Appellate Court---Contention of the plaintiffs inter alia was that the defendants had fraudulently got the mutation for the suit-land attested in their favour in violation of section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967---Validity---Mutation in question had been attested on 30-3-1967 which was prior to the promulgation of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and the plaintiffs could not advance any explanation with regard to the legal impact of laches---Patwari had appeared as a witness and also verified that the plaintiffs had received sale consideration and mutation was fairly attested in favour of the defendants---Disinterested witnesses had also supported the defendants' version and statements of said witnesses had not been shattered by the plaintiffs---Plaintiffs had not challenged the other mutation which was the outcome of the disputed mutation---Long-standing entries in Revenue Record coupled with possession and on the basis of limitation, earn the presumption of truth, which had been rightly relied on by the Appellate Court---Plaintiff had admitted during cross-examination that the defendants were owners of the suit property, therefore, in the light of such admission the onus to prove the mutation in favour of the defendants became irrelevant in terms of Article 113 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Order of Appellate Court could not be interfered with---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Hakim Khan v. Nazeer Ahmad Lughmani and 10 others 1992 SCMR 1832; Messrs Islamabad Farming Cooperative Society and others v. Ghulam Abbas Khan and others 2011 SCMR 153; Jamila Khatoon and others v. Aish Muhammad and others 2011 SCMR 222; Hyder Ali Bhimji v. VIth Additional District Judge Karachi 2012 SCMR 254 and Mst. Gul Farosh Jan v. Mehr Angez and 13 others 2012 MLD 1085 rel. (b) Fraud--- ----Plea of laches---Scope---Fraud could not be…
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