 |
| Value of court decree |
⚖️ ریونیو ریکارڈ میں غلط انتقال سے ملکیت ختم نہیں ہوتی
🔹 دو بھائیوں کی مشترکہ زمین
سامیل کے دو بیٹے ہادو اور دادو تھے۔ دونوں بھائیوں کی مشترکہ ملکیت میں 903 کنال 4 مرلہ زمین موجود تھی۔ خاندان رواجی قانون کے تحت چلتا تھا۔
🔹 دادو کی جانب سے بیٹی کے نام ہبہ
دادو نے یکم اکتوبر 1931ء کو اپنی بیٹی مہرن کے نام 339 کنال 4 مرلہ زمین کا ہبہ انتقال درج کرایا۔ اس ہبہ کو بعد میں عدالت میں چیلنج کیا گیا۔
🔹 عدالتی سمجھوتے سے مہرن کا حق محدود ہوگیا
مقدمے میں فریقین کے درمیان سمجھوتہ ہوا۔ عدالت نے ڈگری جاری کی جس کے مطابق مہرن کا حق صرف 16 ایکڑ زمین تک برقرار رہا جبکہ باقی زمین کے متعلق ہبہ ختم ہوگیا۔
🔹 عدالتی ڈگری ریونیو ریکارڈ میں درج نہ ہوسکی
عدالتی ڈگری ریونیو ریکارڈ میں شامل نہیں کی گئی، جس کی وجہ سے پرانا انتقال بدستور موجود رہا۔ بعد میں مہرن کی وفات کے بعد اس کے وارثوں کے نام پوری 339 کنال 4 مرلہ زمین کا وراثتی انتقال کردیا گیا۔
🔹 ورثاء نے غلط انتقال کو چیلنج کیا
مہرن کے وارثوں کے نام پورے رقبے کا انتقال ہونے کے بعد اصل حق داروں نے اعلانِ حق کا دعویٰ دائر کیا اور مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ سابقہ عدالتی ڈگری کے مطابق مہرن صرف 16 ایکڑ کی مالک تھی۔
⚖️ ہائی کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ معاملہ محض ریونیو کارروائی کا نہیں بلکہ حقِ ملکیت کا تنازع ہے، اس لیے اس کا فیصلہ کرنے کا اختیار سول عدالت کو حاصل ہے۔
عدالت نے مزید قرار دیا کہ ریونیو ریکارڈ ملکیت پیدا یا ختم نہیں کرتا بلکہ پہلے سے حاصل شدہ حقِ ملکیت کو ظاہر کرتا ہے۔ لہٰذا ریونیو ریکارڈ میں غلط اندراج کی وجہ سے اصل ملکیتی حق متاثر نہیں ہوتا۔
✅ حتمی فیصلہ
ہائی کورٹ نے اپیلیٹ کورٹ کا فیصلہ ختم کرکے ٹرائل کورٹ کا فیصلہ بحال کردیا اور مہرن کے وارثوں کے نام کیا گیا وراثتی انتقال 16 ایکڑ کے علاوہ باقی زمین کی حد تک منسوخ کردیا۔
Must read Judgement.
2006 CLC 907
[Lahore]
Before Jawwad S. Khawaja, J
MUHAMMAD and 19 others---Petitioners
Versus
MUHAMMAD HAYAT and 8 others-Respondents
Civil Revision No.767 of 2001, heard on 25th October, 2005.
(a) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--
-S. 42-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9-Mutation---Consolidation proceedings were challenged on dispute related to title-Jurisdiction-Validity-Civil Court alone had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter related to title-Appellate Court wrongly observed that matter to challenge consolidation proceedings could only be adjudicated by a Revenue Court.
(b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)-
-S. 42-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.120-Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S.42-Mutation--Decree of entitlement--Non-reflection in Revenue Record-Legal effect of inaccurate mutation on title to property-Decree which determined entitlement of a party would be legally operative whether the same was reflected in Revenue Record or not-Revenue Record would not create or extinguish title, it was merely meant to reflect title which otherwise had been acquired by a person-Any inaccuracy in Revenue Record would not, by itself affect the title of owner-Entitlement of plaintiffs to suit-land was I was admitted, Appellate bellate Court, therefore, proceeded on wrong premise that plaintiffs head not challenged the inaccurate mutation within time prescribed by Art.120 of Limitation Act, 1908-Appellate decree being unsustainable was set aside and that of Trial Court stood restored.
Muzamil Akhtar Shabbir for Petitioners.
Mian M. Ashraf Tanveer for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 25th October, 2005.
JUDGMENT
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioners/plaintiffs impugn the appellate decree dated 18-12-2000 whereby the decree of the learned trial Court dated 8-12-1987 was set aside and the declaratory suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
-
The facts of the ease are straightforward. The parties are related inter se being the lineal descendents of one Samail. Samail had two sons, the e first, first, namely, namely, Hadoo, , is is the the predecessor-in-interest pre of the petitioners. Hadoo had a son, son, namely, Zaida. The other of Samail is Dadoo, who had a daughter, namely, Mukhtaran. Zaida married to Mst. Mukhtaran.
-
Both brothers, Hadoo and Dadoo, jointly owned 903 Kanals, 4 Marlas of land as per Jamabandi for the year 1930-31 in Chak Miana Gondal in Mandi Bahauddin. It is not disputed that the family was governed by customary law. On 1-10-1931 Dadoo gifted 339 Kanals, 4 Marlas out of the said land to his daughter Mst. Mehran (predecessor-in-interest of respondents/defendants) vide gift Mutation No.1036 (Exh.P.4). This mutation was challenged by Dadoo brother of Hadoo, who filed a declaratory suit asserting that the gift was invalid to the extent it affected his reversionary rights after the death of Dadoo. Both Dadoo and Mehran were impleaded as defendants in the suit. The suit was compromised between the parties whereby the gift in favour of Mst. Mehran to the extent of 16 acres was maintained while the gift for the remaining area was cancelled. A decree dated 29-2-1932 (Exh.P.1) was made out reflecting the compromise.
-
At this point it is relevant to note that the decree was not reflected in the Revenue Record and consequently the entry therein based on Mutation No.1036 (Exh.P.4) continued to remain on the record. When Mst. Mehran died, her legal heirs (the respondents herein) obtained inheritance Mutation No.2215 (Exh.P.5) which was sanctioned on 13-3-1946. In view of the fact that the decree (Exh.P.1) had not been reflected in the Revenue Record, the inheritance mutation (Exh.P.5) was made in respect of the entire 339 Kanals, 4 Marlas covered in gift Mutation No.1036 (Exh.P.4).
-
According to the petitioners they only became aware of the mutation (Exh.P.5) when consolidation proceedings were undertaken in the village. They thereafter filed their declaratory suit to assail the inheritance mutation (Exh.P.5). Their case simply put, was that the decree (Exh.P.1), dated 29-2-1932 was conclusive between the parties and, as per terms of this decree, Mst. Mehran was only entitled to 16 acres and nothing in excess thereof. The plea of the petitioners/plaintiffs was accepted by the learned trial Court, which as a result, decreed their suit.
-
The learned Appellate Court has, however, non-suited the petitioners on two grounds. Firstly it has held that the suit filed by the petitioners was meant to challenge consolidation proceedings and, therefore, the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. According to the learned Appellate Court, the matter could only be adjudicated by a Revenue Court. This finding is not legally tenable because the dispute between the parties related to title. In the circumstances, the learned Civil Court alone had jurisdiction to adjudicate in the matter.
-
Secondly, it was held by the learned Appellate Court that the suit was time-barred. This finding was based on the fact that the petitioners had not obtained implementation of the decree (Exh.P.1) in the Revenue Record and had also not challenged the inheritance mutation (Exh.P.5) within the period of six years prescribed by Article 120 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. This finding is also contrary to the law. It is the decree (Exh.P.1) which determined the entitlement of the petitioners. Whether the same ame was was re reflected in the the Revenue Record or not, is of f no no legal legal consequence. Here it may be, observed that the Revenue Record does not create or extinguish title. It is merely meant to reflect title which otherwise has been acquired by a person. Any inaccuracy in the Revenue Record, does not, by itself, affect the title of owners such as the legal representatives of Hadoo. This is particularly so because there was no dispute or challenge to the title asserted by the petitioners/plaintiffs. Therefore, on the question of limitation also the appellate decree is not sustainable.
-
Before parting with this judgment I need to note that although the decree (Exh.P.1) dated 29-2-1932 refers to 16 Kanals as the area given to Mst. Mehran, it is not in contention that the actual area given to Mst. Mehran as absolute owner was 16 acres. This is evident from the statements of Hadoo and Dadoo which formed the basis of the consent decree (Exh.P.1).
-
In the foregoing circumstances, the appellate decree dated 18-12-2000 is set aside. The decree of the learned trial Court, dated 8-12-1987 is affirmed and the inheritance mutation (Exh.P.5) is set aside except in respect of 16 acres which was the exclusive property of Mst. Mehran.
-
This revision petition is allowed in the above terms.
F.B./M-1435/L
Petition allowed