1989 PLP 1403 (SCMR)
SUALIHEEN‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOR ZAMAN and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1403 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan shah and Abdul Kadir Sheikh, JJ |
| Parties | SUALIHEEN‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOR ZAMAN and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1403 (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 1403 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan shah and Abdul Kadir Sheikh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1403 (SCMR) (SUALIHEEN‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOR ZAMAN and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 29‑4‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpiridf; in Civil Revision No.276 of 1981). ‑‑‑S.42‑‑Constitution of Pakistan ((1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Mutation‑‑Question was whether petitioner's contention to the effect that the land in dispute was, in fact, purchased from one `N' who admitttedly was its owner, but instead the name of his brother `Y' had been erroneouslly entered as its vendor in the mutation, was well‑founded‑‑Question had been fiully gone into by the Courts below and last judgment in this respect was rendlered by the High Court after a thorough examination of all the circumstancces concluding that it was for the petitioner (plaintiff) to prove the sale and question whether petitioner purchased land from `N' or his brother was esentialty a question of fact which was not open to the petitioner to challenge unless he could show that finding was without evidence‑ No evidence or circumstance which might show that conclusion of the High Court was wrong was pointed out‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The question was whether the petitioner's contention to the effect that the land in dispute was, in fact, purchased from Noor Zaman, who admittedly was its owner, but instead the name of his brother Yasin had been erroneously entered as its vendor in the mutation record, was well founded. This question has been fully gone into by the Courts below and the last judgment in this respect was rendered by the High Court and after a thorough examination of all the circumstances the High Court concluded as follows:‑ "1t was for the plaintiff (petitioner herein) to prove the sale. In my judgment, evidence on record is insufficient to hold that the plaintiff (petitioner herin) had purchased the suit property from Noor Zaman as alleged and the name of Yasin was erroneously entered in the mutation foil. The question whether the land was purchased by Sualiheen (Petitioner herein) from Noor Zaman Or Yasir is essentially a question of fact and it is hardly open to the petitioner to challenge it unless he can show that the finding is without evidence. Conclusion of the Court below that sale by Noor Zaman was not established, cannot be disturbed in revision. Accordingly, civil revision fails and is dismissed in limine." The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any evidence or circumstance which might show that the above conclusion of the High court is wrong. Dismissed. NI.BA./S‑271/S Petition dismissed.