Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 524 2016 SLD 524 2016 SCMR 862
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 525 of 2013, decided on 27th January, 2016. Date of hearing: 27th January, 2016.
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN AND MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JJ
Nazakat Baig, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Muhammad Afzal Janjua, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent.

GHULAM FARID and another

VS

SHER REHMAN through LRs.

Law:

Section:

(a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----Ss. 39 & 42---Illiterate village lady---Sale of land---Proof--- Incorporation of mutation into the "Jamabandi" and its repetition periodically, relevance of --- Mere incorporation of mutation into the "Jamabandi" and its repetition periodically, would not confer title on the purchaser unless the transaction of sale was independently established, through cogent and convincing evidence---In the case of transaction with illiterate village lady such principle assumed the status of rule of law as in such a case the onus of the beneficiary became manifold---To discharge the burden of proof, beneficiary had to satisfy the court that the entire transaction was completed in a transparent manner and all the required precautions were faithfully and honestly observed before the attestation of mutation, dispelling every suspicion that it was tainted with fraud and misrepresentation. (b) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17 & 79---Illiterate village lady---Sale of land---Proof---Mutation, attestation of---Fraud, misrepresentation and mala fides---None of the purported sellers including Illiterate village ladies had thumb impressed the disputed mutation---Daily diary maintained by the 'Patwari' was not produced as it was destroyed after 12 years, however, the purported purchaser did not obtain a certified copy of the same---Neither the two attesting witnesses to the mutation, nor the Halqa Patwari who made entries in the daily diary, were produced to substantiate the claim of the purported purchaser---Revenue Officer who attested the mutation was also not produced---Impugned mutation was attested in a "Mouza" situated 3/4 miles away from the "Mouza" where the property was actually situated---Evidence did not show that in whose presence, where, on what date and time the transaction of sale took place and how the sale consideration was paid to the vendors including the two illiterate village ladies---Impugned transaction of sale, in the present case, was not independently established through convincing, reliable and cogent evidence---Mala…
🔒
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