2006 PLP 1064 (SCMR)

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

These petitions have been filed against the judgment, dated 28-3-2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Civil Revisions Nos.1478 of 2000 and 1845 of 2000 respectively have been dismissed. As identical questions of facts and law have been decided by the High Court by means of impugned judgment, which has been assailed in both the petitions, therefore, we intend to dispose of the same by this single order. (2). Precisely stating the facts of the case are that on 4th February, 1992 the petitioner Madhu Lal Hussain in C.P.L.A. No.1948-L of 2002 instituted a suit for declaration on the averments that his deceased wife namely Mst. Ghulam Bibi was the owner of 91 Kanals and 8 Marlas of suit-land description whereof has been given in the plaint. It is the case .of the petitioner that relations between the spouses became strained and she being issueless needed to borrow some money. Respondent No.2 Muhammad Yaqoob took her along with him and got Mutation No.374 attested in his favour whereby 43 Kanals and 6 Marlas of land stood transferred in his name. Subsequently the said lady approached respondents Nos. 3 and 4 (petitioners in C.P. No.1777-L of 2002) and asked them to get her land mortgaged as she needed Rs.5,

000. The said respondents paid Rs.5,000 to her and told her that mortgage mutation has been entered and it will be redeemed when she will pay back the money. When Ghulam Bibi approached the respondents for return of the money she was confronted with Mutation No.382 whereby the land owned by her was shown sold to them and Hussain Shah Lumberdar, Sikandar, Amir Ali Khewat Dar, Sawar Shah and Noor Muhammad identified her. Consequently Mst. Ghulam Bibi filed an application before Revenue Authorities . In pursuance of said application an inquiry was conducted and Hussain Shah, Lumberdar gave an affidavit stating that he had not identified the lady. The Revenue Authorities in consequence of the inquiry found the mutations as fraudulent and fictitious but directed the lady to approach the Civil Court. Therefore, Madhu Lal Hussain filed suit after the death of his wife i.e. Ghulam Bibi. (3). The suit was contested by the defendants (petitioners) by filing a written statement. It was averred that the suit is barred by time and that plaintiff is estopped by his conduct from filing the suit. On merits it was alleged that the land was validly purchased by means of Mutations Nos.374 attested on 6-4-1983 and 382 attested on 4-7-1983. It was further stated that the lady during her lifetime admitted the said transactions and that she had herself filed some suits, which were withdrawn and thus one suit was filed describing her as a person of unsound mind but upon examination by learned Civil Judge she was found to be of sound mind and the suit was dismissed. (4). On pleadings of parties issues were framed and after taking evidence pro and contra the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment/decree, dated 28-7-1999. Feeling aggrieved from judgment/decree of trial Court petitioner filed appeal, which was heard by Additional District Judge, Faisalabad. Learned Additional District Judge has partly allowed the appeal and decreed Mutation No.382 as illegal. The decree of the learned trial Court was accordingly modified vide judgment/decree, dated 8-5-2000. Against judgment/decree of learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, the respondents (petitioners in C.P. No.1777-L of 2002) filed Civil Revision No.1478 of 2000 whereas petitioner (plaintiff) instituted Civil Revision No.1845 of 2000. Learned High Court by means of impugned judgment dismissed both the revision petitions. As such instant petitions for leave to appeal have been filed. (5). Learned counsel for petitioners in Civil Revision No.1948-L of " 2002 argued that the evidence available on record was not considered by the High Court properly. Similarly learned counsel in C.P. No.1777-L of 2002 stated that although Court has formed opinion that Mst. Ghulam Bibi had not sold the property but the documents available on record have not been considered. (6). With the assistance of both the learned counsel we have thoroughly examined the case in the light of the available material on record as well as findings recorded by the High Court and have also taken into consideration the Mutation No.382, dated 4th July, 1983 along with Roznamcha Waqyati and the provisions of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act. In our opinion learned High Court has rightly dismissed the revision petitions after appreciating the evidence available on record. It is to be noted that signatures of Ghulam Bibi were obtained on Mutation Entry No.382, dated 4-7-1983 as well as Roznamcha Waqyati contrary to the provisions of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the same. Since question of fact has been set at naught by learned High Court after taking into the material available on record, therefore, in our opinion no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.Thus for the foregoing reasons we see no merit in the petitions which are accordingly dismissed and leave declined. M.H./U-29/SC Petitions dismissed.