1997 PLP 1204 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. BASHIR BIBI‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997 PLP 1204 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Akhtar Said, Member (Judicial‑I) |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. BASHIR BIBI‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 1204 (CLC)?
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 1997 PLP 1204 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Akhtar Said, Member (Judicial‑I).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 1204 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. BASHIR BIBI‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan for Petitioners,
- Malik Talib Hussain Awan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 2 (22) & 164‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Civil Court‑‑‑Power of Attorney on basis of which registered sale‑deed in respect of land in question was executed and mutation of such sale was attested, had been challenged in revision alleging that power of attorney was false and was not genuine‑‑‑It was function of Civil Court and not Revenue Courts to sit in judgment over genuineness of power of attorney which was a registered document‑‑‑Revenue Courts could not go beyond registered power of attorney and registered sale‑deed‑‑‑To establish alleged fraud as fraud concerning a registered document same could be examined only by Civil Court.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan for Petitioners, Malik Talib Hussain Awan for Respondent. The vendor Ali Muhammad is alleged to have given a power of attorney to the husband of the respondent. This power of attorney, whether genuine or fake, was registered on 30‑6‑1982. It was on the basis of this registered document that the registered sale‑deed of 13‑8‑1986 was executed. It was on the basis of this deed that Mutation No. 162 was attested on 27‑2‑1988.
2. The argument of the petitioner that the power of attorney was fake because consideration is not adequate, is not relevant before the Revenue Court. Even if this has force, it is the function of Civil Court and not of revenue Courts to sit in judgment over the genuineness of registered documents. The same applies to the argument that the husband of the respondent waited for one and a half years before he got the mutation attested on the basis of the deed. These are factors which the petitioners have urged to prove fraud. But circumstances tending to establish fraud concerning a registered document can be examined only by a Civil Court.
3. There is no difference whether a document is executed by an owner personally or by someone else on his behalf who has a power of attorney from A the owner. Again, the relevant authorities can determine whether the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee have been adequately paid or not. In any case, as piece of evidence this fact can be taken into consideration by a Civil Court.
4. In view of the above arguments I find that Revenue Courts cannot go beyond the registered power of attorney and the registered sale‑deed to establish fraud. This is well‑settled law. would, therefore, reject the petition. H.B.T./65/R Petition rejected