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

Section: 42

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

Section: 42

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XLI,R.27,115

(a) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)-------S. 42---Mutation---Evidentiary value---Mutation would not create or destroy title as same was maintained for keeping the record right. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XLI, R. 27---Production of additional evidence at appellate stage---Scope---Party desiring to produce such evidence could be permitted only for specific reasons mentioned in O.XLI, R.27, C.P.C. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- -----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Concurrent findings of courts below---High Court, in such jurisdiction, for being limited one, could not interfere with such findings in absence of illegality, irregularity or misreading or non-reading of evidence---Principles. Ghulam Mohyuddin Malik for Petitioner. ORDER WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.--- Impugned herein is the judgment and decree dated 7-6-2011 of learned Additional District Judge-V, Kohat vide which the appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 21-7-2011 of learned Civil Judge-XI, Kohat was maintained. 2. Facts of the case are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for decree of possession and permanent injunction, in terms, that they are entitled to inherit from 1/10th share in the legacy of deceased Karim Khan son of Syed Ali and petitioner is entitled to inherit from remaining 1/10th hence the entire property gifted by deceased Karim Khan through Mutation No.1856 attested on 28-8-1970 in favour of petitioner was the result of fraud, therefore, the same is illegal and ineffective upon their rights on the ground that mutation was attested just to deprive them from their legal share in the property in dispute. Defendants were put on notice. Petitioner/defendant No.1 through her attorney filed written statement. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and pro and contra evidence was recorded. It is, however, to be mentioned that during pendency of the suit the petitioner preferred an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., which was resisted by respondents by filing replication thereto and subsequently the same was accepted by learned trial court vide order dated…

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