2006 PLP 3111 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and another — Petitioners Versus SAROO and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 3111 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and another — Petitioners Versus SAROO and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 3111 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 3111 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 3111 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and another — Petitioners Versus SAROO and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazir A. Javed for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Yousaf Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 42
Defendants purchased suit-land vide mutation duly sanctioned
Plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaration that they were exclusive owners of land including land purchased by defendants
Both Courts below having concurrently decreed the suit
Plaintiffs could not have been granted declaration of title in respect of suit-land which was validly sold by its owner in favour of defendants
Impugned decrees being the result of misreading of evidence, were not legally sustainable, which were set aside by High-Court in revision to the extent of land validly purchased by petitioners. Dated of hearing: 14th November, 2005.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioners purchased the suit-land measuring 2 Kanals and 3 Marlas from one Sayee Muhammad vide Mutation No.150 sanctioned on 15-11-1984. This land was comprised in Killa No.6 of square No.95 and Killa Nos.9 and 10 of square No.100. On 21-5-1986, Saroo son of Mirza (respondent/plaintiff) filed a suit seeking a declaration that he was exclusive owner of land measuring 162 Kanals. The land described in the plaint included the aforesaid 2 Kanals and 3 Marlas claimed by the petitioners. Both Courts below have decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff in its entirety. Hence this revision petition.
2. The learned Courts below have fallen in error on account of misreading of the available documentary evidence. It has been held by the learned Courts below that Mutation No.150 whereby the petitioners purchased the land was based on exchange Mutation No.124 sanctioned on 27-6-1984. Since Mutation No.124 was set aside by the learned Courts below, they concurrently held that mutation No.150 was also illegally sanctioned.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through Mutation No.150 and Mutation No.123 (Exh.D.2). From a bare perusal of the same it is obvious that the title of their vendor, namely, Sayee Muhammad, was duly shown as co-owner along with others, of the disputed land. Mutation No.123 (Exh.D.2) was based on the order passed by the Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue (Exh.D.1) dated 15-4-1984 holding that Sayee and others were co-owners of the land in a joint Khata. Unfortunately the learned Courts below have not even noticed Mutation No.123, which clearly shows that Sayee was recorded as co-owner' of killa No.6 in square No.95 and Killa Nos. 9 and 10 in square No.100 and he was, therefore, entitled to sell the disputed 2 Kanals and 3 Marlas.
4. In the foregoing circumstances, it is clear that the respondents/plaintiffs could not have been granted declaration of title in respect of the land measuring 2 Kanals and 3 Marlas which was validly sold by its owner Sayee in favour of the petitioners. The impugned decrees being a result of misreading of evidence are not legally sustainable in so far as the same relate to the area of 2 Kanals and 3 Marlas. The impugned decrees are, therefore, set aside to the extent of the said land. H.B.T./M-441/L Revision allowed.