Revenue record

Suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs was decreed by Trial Court in their favour and appeal filed by petitioners/defendants was dismissed by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Roznamcha attained no presumption of truth, unless and until its maker was produced to prove the same

Revenue officer who attested alleged mutation was not produced and hence no probative value could be attached to the Report incorporating mutation in question

There were overwhelming features in support of registered agreement to sell in favour of respondents/plaintiffs coupled with concurrent judgments of two Courts below in their support

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Presumption of correctness was attached to entries in revenue record but strong presumption of correctness was attached to entries made in the course of first settlement

Petitioners/plaintiffs of suit were to stand on their own legs and their case could not succeed merely by exploiting weaknesses of opposite party i.e. respondents / defendants

When petitioners/plaintiffs could not prove that property in dispute had been part of property assigned to their village nor they had ever remained in possession of specific part of property in dispute, then weaknesses in plea of respondents/ defendants was not sufficient to give a decree to petitioners/plaintiffs for setting aside entries made in revenue record in the course of first settlement

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below who dismissed suit of petitioners/ plaintiffs and such findings were not result of misreading and non-reading of evidence nor had caused miscarriage of justice

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mutation entry in Revenue Record can neither create nor extinguish title to property as these are only maintained for fiscal purposes

Right to title or ownership of any property depends entirely on the title, source of acquisition of the right while an entry in the records of rights is not conclusive evidence of the right of ownership

Mere mutation does not confer any right in any property on anyone and the mutation entry raises a rebuttable presumption in favour of person in whose favour the same is made

In the present case the appellants (plaintiffs) failed to discharge the burden which in the given facts lay on them heavily as their only piece of evidence and document was some inquiry report of the year 1921 which they could not prove satisfactorily

Appeal was dismissed.

Petitioner / plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of suit property on the basis of acknowledgement agreement executed by defendant

Suit property was incorporated in the name of defendant in revenue record

Suit and appeal were concurrently dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively

Validity

Entry in revenue record / registration of mutation were made for fiscal purposes and did not confer any title on beneficiary, who had to independently establish transfer of property in her favour through any arrangement preceding attestation of mutation

Burden to establish title which plaintiff acquired on the basis of mutation, was on him which he was to establish in manner as provided under Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Court was empowered under O.VII, R.7, C.P.C. to grant such relief on conclusion of trial as it could think just to the same extent as if it had been asked for

Court of equities while administering civil justice could never remain mistress of rules and procedures

Both the parties did not give any date for registration of deed

Limitation was to run from date when it was noticed by plaintiff that vendor / defendant refused to perform her part of obligation i.e. attestation of mutation or execution of registered deed

Suit of plaintiff against defendant if considered as suit for specific performance, was not barred by any period of limitation

High Court converted suit for specific performance of agreement and directed defendant to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Onus lies on the person who wants to establish the genuineness of the transfer.

Presumption can only be raised as to regularity in the form and procedure adopted in performance of official/judicial act, but it cannot be raised about the correctness of decision taken by the Revenue Officer.

Plea raised by land owner was that land in question was commercial in nature whereas it was treated as residential for the purposes of compensation

Validity

Use of land at the time of acquisition was also to be considered a factor to determine its status/classification

Revenue record could not be the exclusive criteria to determine its value and potential

Classification of land in dispute was determined on the basis of revenue record

Adjoining land was classified as "commercial" and compensation was assessed accordingly

Potential of the land was also ignored as many factories in running position were also existing adjacent to appellant's factory, which was acquired by the authorities

High Court set aside findings recorded by Referee Court and enhanced compensation of land as per commercial status

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner sought review of judgment passed by High Court dismissing his Constitutional petition against order passed by authorities

Plea raised by petitioner was that land in question was private land and could not be termed as thoroughfare

Validity

Presumption of truth was attached to entries of revenue papers in accordance with S.52 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act, 1967, though it was rebuttable

Entries in revenue papers were never challenged before appropriate forum nor were questioned before Tribunal and not even before High Court

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as points raised in Constitutional petition were properly decided in the judgment

Review petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff / respondent assailed mutation of inheritance in a suit filed after 33 years of its attestation, on the plea that defendant / petitioner was not husband of his sister

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently decided the matter in favour of plaintiff/respondent

Validity

Entries made in revenue record regarding transfer of property in favour of sister of plaintiff/respondent was presumptive evidence of title

If any person was to challenge such entries, that person was to produce confidence inspiring evidence to rebut evidence in revenue record

Both the Courts below illegally ignored statement of defence witness who had stated about relation between sister of plaintiff/respondent and defendant/petitioner as husband and wife

Testimony of defence witness regarding marriage of the two was relevant fact which supported entry of mutation in question in terms of Art. 64 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Both the Courts below overlooked delay in filing suit on 19-05-2009 against mutation attested on 5-11-1976, which was time barred

Plaintiff/respondent failed to establish that his sister was not married to respondent/defendant

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below as judgments and decrees were based on misreading of evidence

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to the effect that their predecessor was owner of the property and they were being his legal heirs and were entitled to get his property but in fact the status of their predecessor was only a mortgagee

Any person who had mortgagee rights could only transfer to others the mortgagee rights and same were only devolved upon their legal heirs.

Presumption attached to Jamabandi was rebutable.

Defendants were in continuous possession of suit property and no one had challenged such long standing entries effected in the record of rights

Presumption of truth was attached to the revenue record prepared in accordance with law which could not be discarded unless proved otherwise by convincing and cogent evidence

If a person was enjoying possession of land then law of limitation should be given high consideration to discourage frivolous claims brought beyond the stipulated period of time

Both the courts below had properly appreciated and appraised the facts of the case

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below

Frivolous suit had been filed by the plaintiff

Revision was dismissed with cost throughout in circumstances.

Presumption of truth was attached to the revenue record prepared in accordance with law which could not be discarded, unless proved otherwise by convincing and cogent evidence.

Both the courts below had given preference to "Parat Patwar" against "Parat Sarkar" which was against law, as certified copy of "Parat Sarkar" of mutation was admissible in evidence and had evidentiary value against "Parat Patwar"

No cutting or over-writing in "Parat Sarkar" was found

Findings recorded by courts below with regard to mutation in question were not sustainable under law, therefore, were set aside

Plaintiffs claimed to have paid entire price for transfer of land and mutation in question was sanctioned and incorporated in revenue record, therefore, plaintiffs were bound under law to show that their suit was within prescribed period of limitation

Mutation was sanctioned on 9-9-1979 and suit was filed on 13-2-1993, which had been filed after about 14 years of attestation of mutation

Limitation provided for declaratory suit under residuary Art. 120 of Limitation Act, 1908, was applicable and limitation provided therein was six years, thus suit was time-barred

Findings of both the courts below with regard to limitation were against law, therefore, findings recorded by both the courts and judgments and decrees were set aside and suit filed by plaintiffs was dismissed

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Jamabandi carried presumption of correctness and required strong rebuttal evidence.

Issue of territorial jurisdiction was pending before Supreme Court when revenue authorities cancelled entry in revenue record which was in favour of petitioners

Validity

Revenue authorities committed gross illegality in passing order in question, as the matter with regard to territorial jurisdiction of competent civil Court was pending before Supreme Court and dispute between the parties could only be decided by such Court of competent jurisdiction on merits only after recording of evidence once the Supreme Court would decide the matter of jurisdiction

Revenue authorities were required to maintain status quo and not to proceed with matter under any circumstance as the same would have an adverse effect on the merits of case and prejudiced the interest of parties without seeking permission or clarification from the Supreme Court as it was seized of the matter and in which proceedings, revenue authorities were party

High Court directed the parties to maintain status quo in the matter till the issue of territorial jurisdiction was finally decided by the Supreme Court, resultantly order cancelling revenue entry in favour of petitioner was set aside

Petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff purchased a plot on 23-7-1971 but in demarcation proceedings by revenue authorities it was established that plaintiff had taken possession of some other plot which possession was returned

Plaintiff on 29-1-1991 filed recovery of possession of his plot against defendants which suit was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff

Validity

Documentary evidence which consisted of demarcation report; copies from record prepared by Patwari; and reports of revenue officials, were not per se admissible

When defendants were not associated at the time of demarcation proceedings and authors of demarcation proceedings and other documents which consisted of reports, were not produced before the Court to prove those documents, such documents had no evidentiary value and could not be read in evidence against defendants

Plaintiff was entitled to possession on the date when sale took place in his favour, therefore, suit was time-barred

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Second appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Perusal of record revealed that the plaintiffs had based their claims on oral evidence which was neither convincing nor cogent to substantiate their claim

According to the revenue record, suit land was in name of the defendants right from the first settlement record

Such longstanding entries in the revenue record could not be disturbed since presumption of truth was attached to them

No defect was found in the judgment of Appellate Court

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.