P L D 1980 Peshawar 40 (PLP)
LAL KHAN AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MURID KHAN AND 6 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1980 Peshawar 40 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LAL KHAN AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MURID KHAN AND 6 OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1980 Peshawar 40 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1980 Peshawar 40 (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 1980 Peshawar 40 (PLP) (LAL KHAN AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MURID KHAN AND 6 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Haji Saadullah Khan for Petitioners No. 1.
- Khurshid Alam Sherazi for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑ S. 115‑Revision‑Scope‑Transferor in previous annual record shown as owner of 12/50 share in disputed field but in subsequent record shown as owner of 21/50 share‑No mutation effected in intervening period to justify increase in share nor contesting respondents establishing later entry having been made on basis of some transaction‑Incumbent on trial Judge to find out reason for such change but trial Court as well as appellate Court omitting to take such fact into consideration‑High Court examining a revenue official for obtaining explanation and interpretation of different annual records to do substantial justice and to find out if Courts below misread evidence and committed material irregularity‑Contention that examination of Witnesses could not be resorted to in revisional stage nor could concurrent findings of fact be disturbed at such stage‑Held.: Contention without any substance‑Every case to be decided on its own merits on .points of fact as well as law‑Evidence on record having been placed in haphazard manner, necessity of examining revenue official arose to find if Courts below read evidence correctly or committed material irregulari ties in examination and appreciation of evidence and as such examina tion of witness by High Court justified and not in contravention of provisions of S. 11 5.
‑ S. 115‑Revision‑‑Words "acted illegally" appearing is S. 115- Imply not merely committing of any error of procedure but also relate to gross and palpable error of subordinate Courts resulting in grave injustice.‑[Words and phrases].
Judgment & Decree
(i) Karam Haider Shah 2/5 share (ii) Hussain Bakhsh Shah 1/10 share (iii) Manzoor Hussain Shah 1/10 share (iv) Ghulam Qasim Shah 221/920 share (v) Baluch Khan 147/920 share Karam Haider Shah died and his inheritance Mutation No: 385 was attested on 15-9-1934. His share in the disputed field number devolved on Hussain Bakhsh Shah and Manzoor Hussain Shah. Hussain Bakhsh Shah also died and Manzoor Hussain Shah inherited his entire share by Mutation No. 483 attested on 13-12-1936. This changed the position in the shareholdings and then the different owners held the shares in the field number as under :- (i) Manzoor Hussain Shah 3/5 share (ii) Ghulam Qasim Shah 6/25 share (iii) Baluch Khan 4/25 share Manzoor Hassain Shah sold his share by Mutation No. 516 attested on 23-5-1940 in the names of Khan Muhanimad son of Jiwan Khan and Baluch Khan defendant No.
6. This changed the share-holdings as follows:- (i) Khan Muhammad 3/10 share (ii) Baluch Khan 23/50 share (iii) Ghulam Qasim Shah 6/25 share Khan Muhammad sold his share to Ghulam Hussain Shah, Lal Khan, Ahmad Nawaz and Rab Nawaz by mutation No. 687 attested on 23-3-1949. In this manner the then existing owners held the following shares:- (i) Baluch Khan 23/50 share (ii) Ghulam Hussain Shah 15/50 share (iii) Ghulam Qasim Shah 12/50 share This is recorded in the annual record for the year 1949-50. This position had remained intact thereafter throughout when by mutation No. 912 attested on 25-12-1964 Ghulam Qasim Shah sold his entire share to Mureed Khan defendant No.
1. In this manner Ghulam Qasim Shah was not left with any share which he could sell or exchange. The two mutations have therefore, rightly been challenged by the plaintiffs and I hold that on the basis of these muta tions alone Mureed Khan did not become owner of any other share in the property.
12. The result of the above discussion is that I decide issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs. On issue No. 2 I hold that Mutations Nos. 1019 and 931 were attested without any valid right of Ghulam Shah. On issue No. 3 I hold that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 7 are owners as claimed by them. The finding on these three Issues is, however subject to the decision which may be arrived at in respect of the Issues Nos. 4, 7, 9 and 11 which too had been argued before me. If these four issues are decided against the plaintiffs and to favour of defendant No. 1 then of course the final deci sion would be different. These issues are as under:- "
4. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII, rules 11 and 14, C. P. C.?
7. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?
9. Whether the suit is barred under section 11 and Order XXIII, rule 1, C. P. C.? (11) Whether defendant No. 1 is a bona fide purchaser for consideration of the suit land. If so to what effect? These issues have been discussed by the trial Judge in his judgment. The learned District Judge has, however, not given any finding thereon. In my opinion it would be in the interest of justice that the parties are given a chance to argue these issues in the first instance before the District Judge who has omitted to consider them. No doubt this Court could take up the issues itself but it would be better if the arguments are advanced before the District Judge who has a wider power to examine the questions of fact as well as of law whereas the jurisdiction of this Court is restricted within the short campus of section 115, C. P. C.
13. The result is that I accept this appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below, and remit the case back to the District Judge with the direction that he should give his considered finding on Issues Nos. 4, 7, 9 and 11 and then dispose of the first appeal accordingly. It may be pointed out that the remaining issues were not argued before me. The cost shall follow the event. S. A. H. Appeal accepted. Case remanded.