2024 C L C 890
[Peshawar]
Before S M Attique Shah, J
Haji AKBAR and others----Petitioners
Versus
JEHANGIR and others----Respondents
Civil Revision No.287-P of 2013 with C.M. Nos.287-P, 321 and 361-P of 2022, decided on 21st September, 2023.
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---
----S. 18 & Art. 120---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 12 & 54---Suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction---Property owned by a minor---Sale-mutation regarding such property, challenging of---Limitation---Claim of the plaintiffs was that sale mutation -in-question qua their predecessor-in-interest was illegal for having been attested at the time when he (the predecessor-in-interest) was minor---Suit was concurrently dismissed---Validity---A person who is aggrieved from any transaction, which is made during his minority can challenge it within three years after getting the age of majority---However , in the present case, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs died way back in the year 1988 but he did not challenge the sale mutation-in-question in his life time before any competent Court of Law, despite having full knowledge of the same, therefore, his legal heirs were precluded to challenge its validity after his death as it is settled that the legal heirs cannot challenge the validity of a mutation , which was not questioned by their predecessor-in-interest in his / her life time---More so, the inheritance mutation of the said predecessor-in-interest was attested in favour of his legal heirs (petitioners/plaintiffs) way back in the year 1991, but even after the said date, the petitioners remained silent for long 18 years in filing civil suit, challenging therein the sale-mutation having been attested in the year 1929, which was hopelessly time-barred---No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below while non-suiting the petitioners/plaintiffs---Revision filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed, in circumstances.
Intelligence Bureau Employees Cooperative Housing Society through Secretary v. Shabbir Hussain and others 2022 SCMR 877 and Saadat Khan and others v. Shahid-ur-Rehman and others PLD 2023 SC 362 ref.
(b) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967---
----S. 52---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.41---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 12 & 54---Suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction---Revenue entries, challenging of---Scope---Claim of the plaintiffs was that sale mutation -in-question qua their predecessor-in-interest was illegal for having been attested at the time when he (the predecessor-in-interest) was minor---Suit was concurrently dismissed---Validity---An attested mutation cannot be considered as a document of title, but simultaneously, when an attested mutation is properly incorporated in the revenue record in subsequent Jamabandies for a long period of time , then the presumption of truth is attached thereto unless and until rebutted through cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence---Record also showed that the mutation-in-question was attested by the vendors in the year 1929, which was still intact and reflected in the revenue record---Therefore, presumption of truth was attached thereto in terms of S.52 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act, 1967 ---Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was attracted to the case of the vendees and as such, they were entitled to the equitable protection available to them under S. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882---No illegality , material irregularity, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence warranting interference in the concurrent findings passed by both the Courts below was found in non-suiting the petitioners---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
Muhammad Shamitn v. Mst. Nisar Fatima 2010 SCMR 18 and Zakia Begum and others v. Nasir-ul-Islam Khan and others 2022 SCMR 2130 ref.
Liaqat Ali Khan for Petitioners.
Inayat-ur-Rehman for Respondents.
No comments:
Post a Comment