Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 132,133,72,85

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

Section: 42

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts.132 & 133---Fact not cross-examined---Effect---Portion of statement which remained unchallenged in cross-examination is presumed to have been accepted by other party. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.72 & 85---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.42---Suit for declaration---Mutation, assailing of---Official record---Custody---Plaintiff assailed mutation of gift on the plea that he transferred 28 Kanal of land which was fraudulently shown as 58 Kanal in revenue record---Both the courts below concurrently decided the matter in favour of plaintiff---Validity---Original application moved by plaintiff before Tehsildar came from the custody of plaintiff himself and it was the only document on the basis of which plaintiff claimed that he had agitated matter before attestation of mutation but the application had not come from proper custody---If the application was marked by Tehsildar to Patwari, then it should have been in the custody of Patwari, as it came from the custody of plaintiff himself, therefore, question was put to plaintiff's witness that the application was marked in ante-date---When a document was not confidence inspiring, as it had not come from proper custody, therefore, whole reliance could not be placed upon such document---Reliance made by both the Courts below on application of plaintiff was not in accordance with law---Plaintiff admitted in cross-examination that possession of 58 Kanals of land had been with defendants since attestation of mutation---Afterwards plaintiff tried to give some explanation but admission remained there---When plaintiff challenged entries of mutation attested in due course of law and mutation itself as well as report of Roznamcha, which supported attestation of mutation, and when statements of witnesses of defendants fully proved valid attestation, then findings recorded by both the Courts below were not sustainable under law---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction reversed the findings and set aside s and decrees passed by both the Courts below, resultantly suit filed by plaintiff was…

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