1989 PLP 1563 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus KHUDA BAKHSH‑‑Respondent Civil Petition No.70 of 1983, decided on 27th
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1563 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus KHUDA BAKHSH‑‑Respondent Civil Petition No.70 of 1983, decided on 27th |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1563 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1563 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1563 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus KHUDA BAKHSH‑‑Respondent Civil Petition No.70 of 1983, decided on 27th). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sher Zaman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
August, 1988. (From the order, dated 8‑12‑82 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in R.S.A. 382/79). ‑‑‑S.52‑‑Revenue record‑‑Presumption of truth‑‑Contention of petitioners that alterations in the revenue record were based on fraud and misrepresentation and as such they were not bound by them‑‑Original record had since been destroyed and it could not be said why the entries in the Revenue record were altered‑ Respondent, or his predecessor‑in‑interest since 1907 had been consistently shown as the owners of the land in dispute and no evidence was available to show that in the intervening period they had paid any Batai to the petitioners‑‑Held, presumption of truth was attached to the Revenue record which further got strengthened when the entries therein remained unchallenged for more than half a century and it was for the petitioners who took the plea of fraud and misrepresentation to rebut the said presumption.
Judgment & Decree
SHAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit brought by the petitioners which was dismissed by the trial Court. The decree of the trial Court was maintained by the Additional District Judge in first appeal and by the High Court in the second appeal.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to agricultural land. In the revenue record, till 1907, the predecessors‑in‑interest of the petitioners were shown to be the owners of the land in dispute. However in that year the entries in the revenue record were changed and instead Ahmad Din, predecessor‑in -interest of the respondent, was mentioned as the owner thereof. The case of the petitioners was that the alterations in the revenue record were based on fraud and misrepresentation and as such they were not bound by them.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that the original revenue record has since been destroyed. It cannot therefore be said why the entries in the revenue record were altered. However that may be, it has not been disputed that since 1907 the respondent or his predecessor‑in‑interest have been consistently shown as the owners of the land in dispute. There is also no evidence that they had in the intervening period paid any batai to the petitioners. A presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record. This presumption gets further strengthened when the entries therein remain unchallenged for more than half a century. It was for the petitioners to rebut this presumption. They took the plea of fraud and misrepresentation but were unable to substantiate it. We would therefore dismiss this petition. M.B.A./M‑824/S Petition dismissed.