Case Details

Citation(s)
1962 SLG = 1962 SLD 2698 = 1962 PLD 111
West Pakistan
Revision No. 237 of 1961-62, decided on 31st March 1962, District Rawalpindi
Presented By: Nasir Ahmed, Member Board of Revenue
Allah Wasaya v. Ghazi P L D 1960 W. P. (Rev.) 88 ref.   S. Ata Ullah for Petitioner.   Said Akbar for
Respondents.  

MUHAMMAD KHALAS-Petitioner  

VERSUS

  MUHAMMAD AKBAR AND ANOTHER-Respondents

Law:

Section:

Mutation-Revenue Officers not concerned with intricate questions of law and custom-Factum of transaction duly attested by alienor-Mutation to be effected whether transaction is against past or prevailing custom-Aggrieved party may have recourse to Civil Court-Voidable and void transactions-Distinction-Aliena tion by limited owner-Voidable transaction.     ORDER   This order will dispose of both the connected Revision Petitions Nos. 237 and 238 of 1961-62. The parties are different but the legal issue involved is the same and for that reason the two petitions can be taken up together. The undisputed facts are as follows: -   In both cases a widow with a limited interest sold the land held by her by means of a registered deed. The mutations entered to incorporate the transactions in the revenue record were rejected by the officers below on the strength of a ruling given by Mr. M. Z. Khan in Allah Wasaya v. Ghazi (P L D 1960 r. P. (Rev.) 88). The alienees have come up in revision.   The only point taken up is that the sale should at least hold good till the death or remarriage of the widow. In any case the transaction is not void under any existing law and is only voidable at the instance of a party who feels aggrieved by the alienation. Right upto Independence in a number of important rulings a distinction between void and voidable transaction was made. Broadly speaking a void transaction is one which is against a statute and is thus unlawful in itself. A voidable transaction is one which is not unlawful in itself but can be avoided at the instance of the parties. An alienation of land made by a limited owner under the customary law, without a valid necessity is a voidable transaction liable to be set aside by a Civil Court. But the other party may not go to a Civil Court; and get the transaction annulled. Anyhow a Revenue Office is not concerned with intricate questions of law and custom if he finds that the factum of a transaction is duly attested by the alienor he should affect a mutation in accordance with the transaction whether it be against the past or prevailing custom. The aggrieved…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register