2006 PLP 1974 (YLR)

S. 118

Exchange transaction

Courts below after considering evidence on record had concluded that respondent had not entered into any exchange transaction with petitioners

Appellate Court had rightly noted that mutation did not create title and that it was only a record of an earlier transaction

Courts below had rightly inferred from unequal bargain represented in mutation in question that respondent had not, in fact, made any exchange

Impugned decrees were unexceptionable

In absence of any jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees, same could not be interfered with by the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. JUDGENT JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.

Respondent No.3, namely, Ansar Mahmood, has died. Vide previous order his L.Rs. were directed to be brought on record. Today Shaukat Ali, respondent No.2, brother of Ansar Mahmood, is present in person. He states that Ansar Mahmood died issueless and unmarried. The parents of Ansar Mahmood and Shaukat Ali also died. In the circumstances Shaukat Ali (respondent No. 4) is the only legal representative of Ansar Mahmood. He is present.

2. According to the process serving agency, Muhammad Ashraf (respondent No.2) has refused to accept service. He is, therefore, deemed to have been duly served. None has appeared on his behalf. He is therefore, proceeded against ex parte.

3. This revision petition impugns the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court dated 1-4-2004 and of the learned lower appellate Court dated 2-3-2005 whereby a suit filed by the respondent/ plaintiff Khushi Muhammad was decreed.

4. The facts of the case have been set out in the impugned judgments and need not therefore, be reproduced in extenso.

5. The learned Courts below have duly considered the evidence on record while concluding that the respondent Khushi Muhammad had not entered into any exchange transaction with the petitioners. The learned appellate Court has rightly noted that Mutation No.166 did not create title. It was only a record of an earlier transaction. I am also of the view that the respondents connived to deprive the petitioners of their land as the respondent/plaintiff was issueless and unmarried. The testimony of respondent Arshad Ali, who appeared as D. W.3, is also material. It showed the inequity of the exchange transaction relied on by the respondents. The learned Courts below were justified in relying on the said testimony while holding that the same gave rise to the inference that the respondent/ plaintiff had not exchanged his land with the petitioners.

6. The petition was admitted to regular hearing on the ground that mere inadequacy of consideration was not a ground nullifying a contract. Considering the evidence on record, I am not left in any doubt that the present case is not one of mere inadequacy of consideration. The Courts below have rightly inferred from the unequal bargain represented in Mutation No.166, that the respondent Khushi Muhammad had not, in fact, made any exchange.

7. In the foregoing circumstances, I find the impugned decrees to be unexceptionable. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity in the impugned judgments which would justify interference therein while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition which is, therefore, dismissed. As a consequence the Exchange Mutation No.166 (Exh.P.1) is set aside and the land comprised therein is reverted to the original owners.