P L D 1962 W (PLP)
MAHMUD‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AMNA‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1962 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmed, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MAHMUD‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AMNA‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1962 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1962 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmed, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1962 W (PLP) (MAHMUD‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AMNA‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Najamud Din for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Mutation‑Document unregistered‑Donor retracting from agreement‑Donee to go to Civil Court for tide. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Najamud Din for Petitioner. Respondent in person. The petitioner Mahmood married the respondent Mst. Amna and executed an unregistered document agreeing to transfer the land in dispute which is three bighas in area in lieu of dower to her. When the mutation came up before the Revenue Officer, Mahmood went back on the agreement though he admitted its execution but stated that he was no longer prepared to give 3 bighas in lieu of dower. The Revenue Officer on the strength of his above admission attested the mutation. Mahmood went in appeal and the Collector accepted it on the ground that the donor had refused to abide by the agreement and the Revenue Officer was not, there fore, competent to sanction the mutation. Mst. Amna went in second appeal to the learned Additional Commissioner who intervened holding that Mahmood could not retract from the agreement and the proper remedy was for him to go to a Civil Court. Mahmood has come up in revision. It has already been mentioned that the document was not a registered one and was merely an agreement that Mahmood would transfer 3 bighas of land to the respondent in lieu of dower. As soon as he appeared before the Assistant Collector, Mahmood though he admitted the execution he retracted from the agreement. A mutation in the last analysis is a question of shifting the onus of proof, namely who should go to a Civil Court to prove his title to the property in dispute. In my opinion it is for Mst. Amna to do so. Quite obviously in the circumstances of the case it is for her to enforce the agreement and through a Civil Court and not by means of mutation proceedings, particularly when the document is unregistered and transfer of possession is disputed. I would accordingly accept the revision petition and) set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner. S. B. Petition accepted.