Paradanashin lady

2014 YLR 178 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 42Suit for declarationSale mutationBurden of proofSale transaction by a pardanashin ladyPrecautionsParadanashin ladyScopePlaintiff filed suit to the effect that she was owner in possession of suit propertyContention of defendant was that he had purchased the said land through sale mutationSuit was dismissed by the Trial Court but same was remanded by the Appellate CourtValidity

Wherever an illiterate, old-age person, pardanasheen lady or female issue of a Muslim was deprived of her property through sale, exchange, gift, inheritance etc., then beneficiary of the transaction would be required to prove its genuineness

Beneficiary would be required to prove with confidence-inspiring evidence that same was the result of free and independent advice of the person parting with the property

Factum of fraud was to be proved by the person alleging the same but in such-like circumstances mere assertion in pleading and evidence were sufficient to discharge their burden

Defendant who alleged sale mutation in his favour was required to strengthen the sale transaction to defeat the claim of plaintiff

Defendant did not appear in the witness box to prove the execution of mutation and payment of sale consideration

Tehsildar and Patwari halqa were not produced to prove that they prepared and attested the same at the instance of plaintiff and she had received sale consideration

Defendant was bound to produce the marginal witnesses of the mutation to prove that same was executed in their presence

Son of defendant appeared in the witness box as attorney of his father but he had not stated about the inability of his father to appear in the witness box

Trial Court had not considered such facts at the time of decision of the case

Appellate Court had rightly found that findings of Trial Court were ambiguous and evidence and material highlighted on record were not discussed

Custom of year 1964 regarding obtaining of signature/thumb-mark on the mutation required comprehensive discussion

Defendant had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment

No jurisdictional defect by the Appellate Court was pointed out

Resolution of disputed issue on merit was the goal of administration of justice

Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.