Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 2296 2011 SLD 2296 2011 CLC 790
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 245 of 2005, decided on 22nd November, 2010.
ATTAULLAH KHAN, 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

MUHAMMAD AFZAL

VS

Mst. BAKHTO and 8 others

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 42---Mutation---Allegation of fraud---Burden of proof---Plaintiff alleging suit mutation to be fraudulently attested would be bound to prove same and not defendant---Principles. 2002 SCMR 1114 and 2007 SCMR 368 ref. 1969 SCMR 299 and PLD 1969 SC 169 rel. JUDGMENT ATTAULLAH KHAN J.--- Muhammad Afzal Khan petitioner has filed this revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. against the concurrent judgments and decrees dated 30-11-2004 and 14-5-2005 passed by the learned two Courts below, whereby his declaratory suit was dismissed. 2. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner Muhammad Afzal Khan had sued Muhammad Ashiq etc; defendants to the effect that according to the revenue record, he is owner-in-possession of the suit-land fully described in the plaint and that Mutation No.942 attested on 19-8-1968 is void, fictitious and of no legal effect. It was further averred in the plaint that Mutation No.940 attested on 10-10-1967 in respect of the suit-land be also declared null and void. 3. The suit was hotly contested by the defendants who filed written statement and divergent pleadings of the parties gave birth to the framing of eleven issues. 4. On evaluating the evidence brought on record and hearing pro and contra arguments, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court whereagainst his appeal also met the same fate vide judgments and decrees mentioned above which are now under challenge in this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that both the Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner. According to him, the plaintiff has challenged the validity of Mutation No.942 dated 19-8-1968 and it was the burden of the defendants to prove that the same was correctly entered and attested. He urged that the Courts below have also wrongly held the suit as time barred because the petitioner remained in Punjab after the attestation of Mutation No. 940 dated 10-10-1967 and when he came back to D.I. Khan in May, 1998, he got the copy of Mutation No.942 dated 19-8-1968 and his suit is, therefore, well within time. 6. On the other…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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