Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 1397 2016 SLD 1397 2016 MLD 135
Lahore High Court
C.R. No. 698 of 2000, heard on 9th January, 2013. Date of hearing: 9th January, 2013.
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE
Syed Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid for Petitioner. Mian Abdul Hayee for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 7. Muhammad Nasir Chohan, A.A.G. for
Respondents Nos. 9 and 10.

SHAH MUHAMMAD - er

VS

Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM and OTHERS --Respondent

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 120

Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)

Section: 42

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) --------- ----------Ss.42 & 54 --------- West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.42 --------- Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 120 --------- Suit for declaration and injunction --------- Limitation --------- Mutation, assailing of --------- Revenue record --------- Parat Sarkar and Parat Patwar --------- Plaintiffs assailed mutation in question fourteen years after it was attested --------- Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in favour of plaintiffs was maintained by Lower Appellate Court --------- Validity --------- Both the courts below had given preference to "Parat Patwar" against "Parat Sarkar" which was against law, as certified copy of "Parat Sarkar" of mutation was admissible in evidence and had evidentiary value against "Parat Patwar" --------- No cutting or over-writing in "Parat Sarkar" was found --------- Findings recorded by courts below with regard to mutation in question were not sustainable under law, therefore, were set aside --------- Plaintiffs claimed to have paid entire price for transfer of land and mutation in question was sanctioned and incorporated in revenue record, therefore, plaintiffs were bound under law to show that their suit was within prescribed period of limitation --------- Mutation was sanctioned on 9-9-1979 and suit was filed on 13-2-1993, which had been filed after about 14 years of attestation of mutation --------- Limitation provided for declaratory suit under residuary Art. 120 of Limitation Act, 1908, was applicable and limitation provided therein was six years, thus suit was time-barred --------- Findings of both the courts below with regard to limitation were against law, therefore, findings recorded by both the courts and s and decrees were set aside and suit filed by plaintiffs was dismissed --------- Revision was allowed in circumstances. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE:---------- Through this revision petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2000, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed upholding the judgment and decree dated 23.2.1999,…
🔒
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