Mutation of sale

2025 SCMR 667 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54Suit for declaration and injunctionMutation of salePlea of abduction and coercion raised by plaintiffNot proved

Respondent/plaintiff assailed sale mutation attested in favour of appellant/defendant on the plea that the same was a result of coercion while keeping him in illegal confinement

Suit was decreed by Trial Court in favour of respondent/plaintiff, whereas appeal and revision filed by appellant / defendant were dismissed by Lower Appellate Court and High Court respectively

Validity

Upon filing of suit and after that making a statement before Court on oath that he/she has not made the transaction and the instrument, the onus to prove such instrument shifts and the beneficiary must prove the transaction as well as valid registration/attestation of document

Respondent/plaintiff was a grown-up married person having a daughter, who pleaded that he was abducted by appellant/defendant who kept him in abduction for 4-5 days and got mutation in question attested and denied transaction of sale in favour of appellant/defendant

It was prime duty of respondent/plaintiff to prove the case pleaded by him but he failed to prove the same

Appellant /defendant produced Patwari as well as revenue officials in the court as witnesses, who had attested mutation in question and they fully supported the entrance and attestation of mutation

Supreme Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by three Courts below and dismissed the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff

Appeal was allowed.

2024 MLD 18 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 42Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54Suit for recovery of possessionMutation of saleProofOnus to prove

Petitioner/defendant claimed to be owner of suit property on the basis of mutation of sale attested by revenue authorities

Respondents/plaintiffs assailed mutation in question on the plea that their deceased predecessor-in-interest died due to cancer who remained in hospital for treatment during the period when mutation in question was attested

Suit filed by respondents/ plaintiffs was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same

Validity

Recording of report in Roznamcha regarding change in rights of a land owner was a first step to trigger process of transfer of rights

Mutation was sanctioned by order of Revenue Officer made in presence of the person whose right was acquired and he had been identified by two respectable persons and an inquiry in such behalf was conducted in common assembly of concerned estate

Entry recorded in Roznamcha was merely a ministerial act performed by Patwari which was incorporated in register of mutations culminating into an order of passing of mutation under S. 42(6) of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967

Act of recording of transaction regarding change of rights by Patwari at the behest of an acquirer in Roznamcha did not constitute an admission of transaction on the part of seller

Petitioner/defendant failed to discharge burden of proof regarding alleged transactions in terms of personal appearance of deceased predecessor-in-interest of respondents/plaintiffs and witnesses before Revenue officer, payment of sale consideration, delivery of possession, subsequent dispossession, recording of transaction in Roznamcha and lawful attestation of mutation in question

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2016 MLD 1708 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 42Mutation of saleContention of plaintiff was that alleged sale mutation in favour of defendants was illegal and without considerationSuit was decreed by the Trial Court but same was dismissed by the Appellate CourtValidityVendor got recorded his statement on 20-09-1999 in the earlier suit of plaintiff that he was owner of suit propertyAlleged sale mutation was attested in favour of defendants on 13-09-1995

If vendor had sold suit property in favour of defendants then he should have deposed in his statement recorded on 20-09-1999

One witness of sale mutation had admitted that he had not affixed his thumb impression before the Tehsildar nor he appeared before the attesting officer or Patwari

Plaintiff was son of vendor who became angry with him and divorced his mother and started living with the defendants

Defendants being beneficiaries of disputed mutation had failed to prove that same was attested against consideration

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and those of Trial Court were restored

Second appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2013 YLR 1870 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.42 & 45Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115Suit for declarationMutation of saleAttestationOnus to provePlaintiffs claimed that they were owners in possession of suit-land and entries in revenue record had no legal value

Defendants resisted the suit by raising the plea that they had purchased suit-land and revenue record supported their version

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently decided the matter in favour of defendants

Validity

Onus to prove valid sale of land in favour of predecessor of defendants was on defendants to prove valid sale and valid attestation of mutation

Compliance of all conditions mentioned in S. 42 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, for valid attestation of mutation were necessary and without strict compliance, the mutation was nullity in the eyes of law

Mutation in question did not create any right or title in suit property in favour of predecessors of defendants and it had also no affect upon the rights of predecessor as well as of plaintiffs

Mutation proceedings were not judicial proceedings and did not at all happen to confer title

Whenever genuineness of any mutation was challenged, burden was squarely on parties relying upon the mutation, to prove actual transaction

High Court declined to close its eyes and validate concurrent findings without application of mind

High Court had to exercise its jurisdiction vested to it under S. 115, C.P.C. and to interfere in illegal findings recorded by courts below, so as to rectify illegality committed by two courts below, when they had ignored basic provisions of law

High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concur-rent judgments and decrees passed by two courts below and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs

Revision was allowed in circumstances.