Case Details

Citation(s)
1995 SLG 679 1995 SLD 679 1995 SCMR 755
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 249 of 1993, decision dated: 9-02-1994.
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ACT CJ AND WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J
M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhtar Ali, Advocate on-Record for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz M. Khan, Advocate on-Record

ABDUR REHMAN

VS

KHALIQ DAD

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) S. 53 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3) Validity of mutation of sale relating to property in question Leave to appeal was granted to consider, whether First ` Appellate Court was justified in reversing /decree of Trial Court, and whether High Court had rightly declined to interfere with Appellate Court's /decree. (b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) S. 53 Mutation of sale relating to property in question was alleged to have been entered and attested through fraud and collusion Quantum of proof ¬Plaintiff admitting his thumb impression on mutation as correct Patwari, Revenue Officer and identifying witnesses who were admittedly disinterested witnesses had stated on oath before Court that mutation in question, was entered and attested at the behest of plaintiff to whom contents thereof, were fully explained and he not only admitted genuineness of transaction but also the receipt of sale consideration ¬Evidence on record was correctly appraised by Trial Court whereby plaintiffs suit was dismissed First Appellate Court and High Court did not properly appraise evidence and their conclusions were based on misreading and non reading of evidence Decree of Trial Court was restored by Supreme Court resulting in dismissal of plaintiffs suit; while those of First Appellate Court and High Court to the contrary were set aside in circumstances. (c) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) S. 54 Transaction of sale Delivery of possession was not legally essential Plaintiff himself, however, was not in physical possession of land in question but was recorded in possession of part of land in question, through tenants Plaintiff therefore could not physically deliver possession of land in question Tenants would thenceforth be deemed to be the tenants of defendant (purchasers) moreso when defendant was a co sharer in Khata ¬Transaction of sale, thus, did not suffer' from validity and was genuine and valid. JUDGMENT WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J. Abdur Rehman, appellant herein, through leave of the Court, assails the judgment dated 25 11 1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, Dera Ismail Khan…
🔒
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