P L D 1965 W (PLP)
HASHMAT ALI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus CHIRAGH DIN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HASHMAT ALI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus CHIRAGH DIN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Mutation |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Mutation as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1965 W (PLP) (HASHMAT ALI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus CHIRAGH DIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Petitioners.
- F. M. Anwari for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Entry does not require to be signed or thumb‑marked by vendors‑All three joint vendors present at time of sanction of mutation‑Thumb‑marks of two not identifiable‑Not necessary to remand case on that account.
Judgment & Decree
‑Entry does not require to be signed or thumb‑marked by vendors‑All three joint vendors present at time of sanction of mutation‑Thumb‑marks of two not identifiable‑Not necessary to remand case on that account. Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Petitioners. F. M. Anwari for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 16th of May 1964, passed by Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur, whereby he accepted the revision preferred by the respondent and remanded the case to the Collector for a fresh decision. The facts of the case are that Chiragh Din along with his two brothers, Umaid Khan and Ali Muhammad sold an area of 22 acres to Hashmat Ali and Muhammad Zubair and mutation No. 235 was sanctioned on 11‑5‑1962. Chiragh Din respondent went in appeal to the Collector but it was rejected. He then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner who passed the orders mentioned above. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. From the mutation order, it is quite clear that all the three vendors were present at the time, the mutation was sanctioned. It is also significant that only Chiragh Din, one of the three brothers had been challenging this sale. The learned Additional Commissioner appears to have been influenced by the consideration that the, thumb‑impressions of the vendors on the mutation had been affixed, but could not be identified. Affixation of thumb‑impression or otherwise has no legal value so far as the sanctioning of mutation is concerned, as the instructions do not require that the vendor should sign or thumb mark the mutation entries. It was, there fore, unnecessary to remand the case. In these circumstances, I accept the revision, set aside the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and direct that mutation No. 235 as originally sanctioned shall stand. A.H. Petition accepted.