Requirements and procedure

2017 YLR 1249 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.42Suit for declarationOral saleIngredientsMutation of oral saleProofRequirements and procedureRapt roznamchaScopeContention of plaintiff was that sale mutation was result of fraud and misrepresentationSuit was dismissed concurrentlyValidityEntries in the mutation had no presumption of correctness prior to incorporation in the record-of-rights

Such entries were admissible in evidence but these required to be proved by the person relying upon it independently through affirmative evidence

Oral transaction reflected in mutation entries neither conferred the title in favour of its beneficiary nor could establish the same

When plaintiff had made statement on oath and alleged commission of fraud in attestation of mutation and denied the transaction reflected therein then onus would shift upon its beneficiary to prove the valid attestation as well as transaction embodied therein

When any witness of mutation had died, beneficiary would be bound to produce any person familiar to his thumb impression to verify it on the disputed mutation

Defendant had failed to prove the payment of sale price to the plaintiff

If payment of consideration of alleged sale had not been proved on record, there could be no sale in the eye of law

Defendant had not been able to establish on record the essential elements of valid sale

If any of the ingredients of sale was missing then vendee had to suffer

Vendee had failed to produce Revenue Officer who attested the mutation in his favour

Best evidence had been withheld by the defendant

Revenue Officer was the best person who could prove the valid attestation of mutation

Party knowing whole circumstance of the case should give evidence on his behalf and to submit for cross-examination

Vendee's non-appearance in the witness box would be possible circumstance going to discredit the truth of his version

Defendant by not appearing in the witness box had failed to discharge the onus shifted on him

Non-appearance of vendee before the Court had created doubts with regard to attestation of oral sale mutation

Statement of special attorney was liable to be ignored as he was neither witness of sale mutation nor any bargain was finalized before him

Plaintiff having affixed his thumb impression on a revenue paper could not be considered sufficient to declare that the same was obtained for attestation for oral sale mutation

Rapt roznamcha did not bear signatures of alleged vendor or vendee which was a requirement of law

Rapt roznamcha had no presumption of truth unless and until its maker was produced to prove the same

Vendee had failed to prove recording of event of sale in the register roznamcha waqiati, attestation of oral sale mutation as well as transaction of sale

Findings recorded by the courts below were result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence which were set aside

Suit was decreed

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

2016 CLC 1858 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

O. VII, R. 11Plaint, rejection ofRequirements and procedure

Court, while rejecting plaint had to consider that the averments made therein if accepted in mode and form would not entitle plaintiff to a relief claimed therein

Plaint could only be rejected when no triable issue was made out or suit was clearly hit by any mandatory provision of law justifying rejection of plaint

Court while rejecting plaint was required only to consider the averments of the same avoiding deeper examination of contents of written statement

Claim made in the plaint, in the present case, had been denied by the defendants

Trial Court should have framed issues and determine controversies between the parties after providing opportunities to them to meet the points

Court on its own motion or on the basis of any application from the parties could take issue of law first if case or any part thereof might be disposed of on such issue only

Present suit involved investigation so that rights of the parties might be addressed properly

Impugned orders passed by both the courts below were set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court for adjudication on merit

Revision was allowed in circumstances.