| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 561 2011 SLD 561 2011 CLC 270 |
Lahore High Court
R.S.A. No. 16 of 1993, decision dated: 8-07-2010
CH. SHAHID SAEED, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
R.S.A. No. 16 of 1993, decision dated: 8-07-2010
CH. SHAHID SAEED, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Syed HAMID RAZA and others
VS
Malik KHUDA BAKHSH and others
Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887
Section: 34
Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887
Section: 34
(a) Pleadings------Variation in pleadings---Effect---Variation in pleadings and proof is not permissible in law---Party cannot lead evidence which is not supported by pleadings---No evidence can be led or looked into in support of a plea which has not been taken in pleadings and parties would be bound by their pleadings. (b) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887)--- ----S. 34---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Mutation, attestation of---Prerequisites---Plaintiffs assailed mutation in question on the plea of fraud---Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the same---Validity---At the time of attestation of mutation, parties to transaction were required to be present, so as to admit receipt of sale consideration and delivery of possession but Revenue Officer giving reference to a previous mutation, buried the question of payment of sale consideration---Alleged vendor was also not present before Revenue Officer at the time of attestation of mutation---Vendor had no knowledge of alienation of suit land and Trial Court had rightly found that mutation was sanctioned on the basis of presumption, surmises and conjectures---Mutation in question was sanctioned in collusion with Revenue staff, therefore, the same was illegal, void, result of fraud and collusion---Trial Court had rightly set aside mutation in question---High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction set aside and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and upheld that of Trial Court---Second appeal was allowed in circumstances. 2007 SCMR 729; 2007 CLC 257; 1991 MLD 2167 and 2000 MLD 2015 ref. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.42---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 120---Suit for declaration---Limitation---Mutation, assailing of---Contention of defendant was that suit filed by plaintiffs was barred by limitation---Validity---Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and limitation period for the same was given under Art. 120 of Limitation Act, 1908, and limitation period was six years---Mutation in question was sanctioned on 26-4-1962, thereafter plaintiffs approached Revenue authorities to declare the same as illegal and void---Matter 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