P L D 1963 W (PLP)
QUTAB DIN‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL KARIM‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1963 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | QUTAB DIN‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL KARIM‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Mutation‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1963 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Mutation‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1963 W (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 1963 W (PLP) (QUTAB DIN‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL KARIM‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sanaullah Bajwa for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Void transaction should, not be given effect to in avenue record‑[Alienation by widow‑Mutation to be entered and sanctioned, because transaction is voidable, not void].
Judgment & Decree
Void transaction should, not be given effect to in avenue record‑[Alienation by widow‑Mutation to be entered and sanctioned, because transaction is voidable, not void]. Sanaullah Bajwa for Petitioner. The brief facts of this case are that Mst. Basso, a widow alienated the property in dispute which is situated in Chak No. 157‑GB, district Lyallpur in favour of Fazal Karim, respon dent. A mutation was attested accordingly but the Collector interfered in appeal and held that the donor was a limited owner and was not entitled to transfer full ownership of the property. In second appeal the learned Commissioner reversed the order passed by the Collector and in doing so relied on the provision of section 37 of the Land Revenue Act. He was also of the view that the question whether a widow a limited owner depended of custom and was thus for determination by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. A second revision has been filed against this order. There have been numerous rulings of the Financial Commis sioners and of the Board of Revenue drawing a distinction between void and voidable transaction. The former are not to be give, effect to in the revenue records whereas the latter are incorporated in them and it is left to an aggrieved party to have the transaction set aside. Custom varies from district to district and even from tribe to tribe and it would be incorrect to assume what the right of a widow, in the property left to her by her husband, are, without going into the pleading of the parties, evidence led by them and previous ruling, if any etc. Mutation proceedings are summary in character and the learned Commissioner was, therefore, right in holding that the competence of the widow to make a gift of the whole or part of the property or her share in (sic) could; not be determined by a revenue officer when deciding a mutation. If It would be clearly a voidable transaction in the sense that it is not against the statutory provisions of any law and has to be set aside at the instance of an aggrieved party by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. In these circumstances I would hold than the decision arrived at by the learned Commissioner is correct and reject the revision petition. K. M. A. Petition rejected.