| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 694 2013 SLD 694 2013 CLC 499 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.456-D of 2012/BWP, decision dated: 11-12-2012
SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Revision No.456-D of 2012/BWP, decision dated: 11-12-2012
SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Mst. ISHRAT BIBI
VS
Mst. HASHMAT BIBI and others
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 115
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 115
Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)
Section: 42
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Concurrent findings of fact---Scope---Normally such findings are considered to be immune to any interference in revisional jurisdiction but when verdicts of courts below otherwise are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence, the same can be set aside being never considered as sacrosanct. Mubarak Ali through L.Rs v. Amroo Khan through L.Rs. 2007 SCMR 1714 rel. (b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S.42---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Suit, for declaration---Attestation of mutation at the residence of Revenue Office---Validity---Misreading and non-reading of evidence---Plaintiff assailed mutation of gift/Tamleeks in favour of defendants, on the basis of forgery and fraud---Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently dismissed suit and appeal filed by plaintiff---Validity---To prove valid gift/Tamleek three ingredients viz offer, acceptance and handing over of possession were sine qua non but according to revenue record neither name of defendants had been incorporated in the record as owner nor they were in possession of suit-land---Process of attestation of mutation was completed at residence of Tehsildar (Revenue Officer) concerned which was violation of S.42 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967---Entries in Revenue Record in the shape of mutations were not conclusive proof of ownership until and unless transaction on the basis whereof the same were attested was fully established from evidence, which had not been proved by defendants---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of fact by two Courts below and decreed suit in favour of plaintiff. Muhammad Ejaz v. Mst. Khalida Awan 2010 CLC 847; Rehmatullah and others v. Saleh Khan and others 2007 SCMR 729; Aurangzeb through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Jaffar and another 2007 SCMR 236; Fida Hussain and others v. Abdul Aziz PLD 2005 SC 343; Zafar Muhammad v. Mst. Anwar Bibi 2004 SCMR 559 and Basir Bibi etc. v. Mst. Mehran Bibi etc. 2003 CLC 1452 ref. (c) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 42---Specific Relief Act (1 of…
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