Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 2159 2015 SLD 2159 2015 YLR 1751
Peshawar High Court
C.R. No. 13 of 2006, decided on 18th June, 2013
MRS. IRSHAD QAISER, J
M. Ilyas Khan for Petitioners. Khurshid Khan for
Respondents

SHAH QASIM and others

VS

ARSHAN BIBI and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.42---Suit for declaration---Mutation--Scope---Burden of proof---Plaintiffs filed suit to the effect that they had purchased suit property through mutation from the defendants---Suit was dismissed concurrently---Validity---Mutation was not a document of title and same by itself did not confer any title, right or interest---Burden of proof would lie on the party who sought to establish the genuineness of transfer of property in his favour---Record of rights were not instruments of title but unless rebutted presumption of truth was attached to them---Defendants had been recorded in the revenue record as owner in possession of the suit land---Mutation was not entered in the revenue record at the instance of vendors---Neither the vendors nor the marginal witnesses either signed or thumb impressed the same---Material contradictions existed in the evidence of plaintiffs with regard to payment of sale consideration---Factum of consent, sale, fixation of consideration as well as receipt of sale consideration and extent of land could not be proved by the plaintiffs---Concurrent findings recorded by the courts below in respect of factual controversy required no interference by the High Court---High Court in revisional jurisdiction could not upset the concurrent findings of fact by means of re-examination of evidence---No misreading or non-reading of evidence was brought on record---Plaintiffs failed to suggest that courts below had drawn wrong conclusion from the evidence---Both the courts below had rightly dismissed the suit---Revision petition was dismissed. (b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----Ss. 42 & 45---Mutation---Scope---Burden of proof---Mutation was not a document of title and same by itself did not confer any title, right or interest---Burden of proof would lie on the party who sought to establish the genuineness of transfer of property in his favour---Record of rights were not instruments of title but unless rebutted presumption of truth was attached to them. JUDGMENT MRS. IRSHAD QAISER, J.---Shah Qasim and three others petitioners, have directed the instant revision petition against the…
🔒
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