Oral Bargain and Invalid Mutation: High Court Upholds Declaration of Ownership 2025 CLC 32
 |
| Oral agreement and mutation |
پس منظر:
اہم نکات اور ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے:
(b) Genuineness of Mutation / جائیداد کی رجسٹری کی حقیقت:
(c) Non-production of Agreement / معاہدے کی غیر پیشی:
(d) Points for Determination / اپیلیٹ عدالت کی تشریحی وجوہات:
نتیجہ:
اہم قانونی حوالہ جات:
مختصر خلاصہ:
Must read judgement
2025 C L C 32
[Lahore]
Before Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J
NAZIR AHMAD and another---Petitioners
Versus
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE---Respondents
Civil Revision No.849 of 2011, decided on 19th january, 2024.
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 42 & 39---Suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation---Oral bargain, assertion of---Proof---Deficiency---Petitioners/defendants assailed judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent / plaintiff by the District Court while reversing dismissal of suit by the Civil Court---Claim of the respondent / plaintiff was that he is owner of suit-property, however, the petitioners / defendants managed verbal mutation (the 'mutation') in their favour in connivance with revenue officials---Defence set-up by the petitioners / defendants in their pleading included oral bargain between the parties---Validity---Record revealed that the written statement was silent about the names of the witnesses of oral bargain, the agreement as well as the place and time when the bargain took place---The defence was setup in preliminary objections, whereas, on merit paragraphs of the plaint were evasively denied by simply stating that the facts stated therein are incorrect---Written statement was silent as to the witnesses of oral bargain; later one witness for defendants' side (claimed to be their tenant ) was introduced to fill the said gap, who also failed to produce any receipt of rent or payment of utility bills by him of the premises-in-question ; he claimed that documents reflecting payments of rents or utility charges were at his home but never bothered to produce such documents until today---On the other hand, the respondent / plaintiff stood by his pleadings in examination-in-chief, who was cross-examined but his answers to all the questions put to him remained reasonable---Respondent/plaintiff, inter alia, deposed that the petitioners were part of gang of land grabbers; his statement was supported by the lambardar as Plaintiff's Witness, through coherent evidence---Petitioners had failed to convince about any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the District Court warranting interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstance.
(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 42 & 39---Suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation ---Genuineness of impugned- mutation---Proof---Deficiency---Petitioners/ defendants assailed judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent / plaintiff by the District Court while reversing dismissal of suit by the Civil Court---Claim of the respondent / plaintiff was that he is owner of suit-property, however, the petitioners / defendants managed verbal mutation (the 'mutation') in their favour in connivance with revenue officials---Defence set-up by the petitioners / defendants in their pleading include genuineness of the mutation---Validity---Record reveal that though the relevant Tehsildar and Patwari appeared as witnesses of defendants, however, mutation-in-question was witnessed by lambardar and Patidar, who were never produced by the petitioners ; somehow, the lambardar appeared from the respondent-side as Plaintiff's Witness and he denied his signatures on the mutation as well as passing of the mutation in his presence; his evidence remained coherent during cross-examination---There was no explanation on record for not producing the second preferred witness i.e. Patidar---Revenue law and the rules framed thereunder prefer mutation to be sanctioned in the presence of lambardar and respectable(s) of the relevant village, having clear rationale that such transactions have some inviolability and when required such respectable(s) can depose accordingly---In course of evidence, Tehsildar and Patwari as DWs stated that lambardar identified the respondent and witnessed the mutation, who already denied the event when he appeared as Plaintiff's Witness---Tehsildar or Patwari during the trial could not explain the reasons for not bringing pert-sarkar with them---No application for comparison of signatures of lambardar (Plaintiff's Witness) on the mutation was instituted---On the other hand, the respondent / plaintiff stood by his pleadings in examination-in-chief, who was cross-examined but his answers to all the questions put to him remained reasonable---Respondent/plaintiff, inter alia, deposed that the petitioners were the part of gang of land grabbers; his statement was supported by the lambardar as a Plaintiff Witness, through coherent evidence---Petitioners had failed to convince as to any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the District Court warranting interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 42 & 39---Suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation---Agreement, non-production of---Effect---Petitioners/ defendants assailed judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent / plaintiff by the District Court while reversing dismissal of suit by the Civil Court---Claim of the respondent / plaintiff was that he is owner of suit- property, however, the petitioners / defendants managed verbal mutation (the 'mutation') in their favour in connivance with revenue officials---Defence set-up by the petitioners / defendants in their pleading included agreement having been executed between the parties---Validity---Record reveals that somehow, the agreement, one of the most crucial documents, was not produced during the trial or proceedings of appeal and then nine (09) years of present revision-petition---Thereafter, a miscellaneous application was instituted, in the year 2020, seeking permission to produce the agreement---The same reflected two witnesses as stamp-vendor---The names of the said persons were not only missing in the pleadings but there remained complete silence regarding them for 13 years---Miscellaneous application and the accompanied agreement was not just an attempt to derail the proceedings and to fill in lacuna but at the same time it was an attempt to prolong the status quo as to the suit property---On the other hand, the respondent / plaintiff stood by his pleadings in examination-in-chief, who was cross-examined but his answers to all the questions put to him remained reasonable---Respondent/plaintiff, inter alia, deposed that the petitioners are part of gang of land grabbers; his statement was supported by the lambardar as a Plaintiff's Witness, through coherent evidence---Petitioners failed to convince as to any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the District Court warranting interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O.XLI, R.31---Judgment passed by District (First Appellate) Court---Points for determination and issue-wise finding not recorded---Effect---Contention of the petitioners was that the points for determination had not been formulated in a sequential manner or issue-wise finding was not recorded---Validity ---Order XLI, R. 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 requires the written judgment of the Appellate Court to state (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled---Undeniably, non-adherence of the said provision can be fatal and the same can only be ignored if there has been a substantial compliance of the provision---Rationale behind the said provision is that not only the party losing the case but the next higher forum should know what weighed with the Court in deciding the lis against one party and in favour of the other---In the present case, the Appellate Court recorded the points raised by the two sides and gave findings of facts on the basis of correct appreciation of evidence and law applicable thereupon---The reasonings rendered by the Appellate Court were though brief but they were pertinent---Appellate Court had correctly allowed the suit---Thus, the contention of the petitioners had lost force since the material questions had already been answered in substantial compliance---Petitioners had failed to convince as to any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the District Court warranting interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Pakistan Refinery Ltd., Karachi v. Barrett Hodgson Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. and others 2019 SCMR 1726; Ch. Abdul Kabeer v. Mian Abdul Wahid and others 1968 SCMR 464; Mst. Roshi and others v. Mst. Fateh and others 1982 SCMR 542 and Qadir Bakhsh (deceased) through L.Rs v. Allah Dewaya and another 2011 SCMR 1162 ref.
Fida Hussain Rana for Petitioners.
Amir Wakeel Butt, Syed Hassan Ali Gillani and Sahibzada Saleem Raza for Respondents along with Muhammad Siddique respondent in person.
No comments:
Post a Comment