Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

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

Section: 42(7),184

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

Section: 90,100,129

Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887

Section: 24(7)

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.42---Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S.24(7)---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Ss. 42(7) & 184---Suit for declaration without consequential relief---Scope---Concurrent findings of facts by two courts below---Petitioner challenged thirty years old mutation---Non-presence or signature of vendor at the time of attestation of mutation---Effect---Mutation was attested in the year 1924 and at that time Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1877 was in field and under S. 24(7) of the said Act, it was not the requirement to obtain signature/thumb impression of vendor on the mutation or to procure the attendance of vendor at the time of attestation of mutation---On promulgation of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 the said requirement had been made mandatory and the things done under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 had been given protection by saving clause of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967---Respondent was not in physical possession nor had claimed any dispossession---Effect---Respondent could not seek a mere declaration of title without asking for possession as consequential relief---Judgments and decrees of two courts below were not tenable due to suffering from misreading and non-reading of evidence and by reversing the s and decrees of courts below, the suit of the respondent was dismissed by High Court. Khawaja Muhammad Naeem and others v. Tasleem Jan and others 1980 CLC 1483 rel. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.90, 100 & 129---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 142---Suit for declaration---Limitation---Scope---Instead of six years time for declaratory suit, every fresh jamabandi and incorrect entry would create fresh cause of action, but subject to possession of the claimant---In the present case declaratory suit was hit by limitation, as plaintiff did not have possession----Presumption of correctness of 30 years' old document---Validity---Petitioner failed to establish his possessory right and in absence of any existing right to the suit property, suit was not maintainable within the ambit of S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act,…

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