Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLG 1523 1994 SLD 1523 = 1994 PLD 148
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 281 of 1987, decided on 22nd December, 1993.
Presented By: Before Saleem Dil Khan, J
M. Amanullah Khattak for Petitioners. Abdul Aziz Khan Kundi Assisted by Muhammad Asghar Khan for
Respondents.

MIRSAB KHAN and others---Petitioners

VERSUS

PARIZAD KHAN and others---Respondents

Law: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)

Section: 58 , 42

Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section:

  Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 58---Limitation Act (IX- of 1908), Art. 148---Mortgage of land-- Mortgagees claiming their undisturbed possession on land under mortgage for more than sixty years for acquiring ownership right by prescription as against true owners---Original mortgagees as per record of rights, remained in possession since the year 1903-1904 as mortgagees; but in the year 1943-44, mortgagees were shown in possession of property in question, in the column of cultivation---Two mutations for redemption of mortgage in favour of mortgagors were entered in Revenue Record in 1945---Simultaneous acquiring of possession alongwith the entry in Revenue Record of said mutation was sufficient proof of the fact that land in question, was properly redeemed and possession was properly handed over to mortgagors---Mortgagees' plea in defence claiming acquisition of title by lapse of period of sixty years over the land in question, was not established in circumstances. West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 42---Mutation---Evidentiary value of---Mutation neither created title nor extinguished title, but in fact, was a record and evidence of transaction-- Whenever any mutation was entered it should be presumed that transaction recorded in the mutation had already taken place---Transaction/alienation of land would be deemed to have been completed on the day when it was effected and not on the day when the mutation was attested---Question as to whether certain transaction was valid or otherwise would depend not on mutation entries but on whether valid transaction existed and given effect relating to property in question. Jungi v. Jhanda PLD 1961 BJ 34; Muhammad Iqbal v. S.A.M. Khan and others PLD 1970 Lah. 614 and PLD 1976 Kar. 109 rel. Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 58---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 148---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Suit on basis of title---Mortgagees' (defendants') plea that they by prescription had acquired title in property was not established on record-- Concurrent finding of two Courts below that redemption of mortgage by mortgagors followed by delivery ofโ€ฆ
๐Ÿ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register