Tamleek

2017 MLD 1792 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 42TamleekMutationProofNon-production of identifier of parties and fingerprint expert as witnessesEffectPrinciples

Plaintiffs/sisters filed a suit for declaration against defendants/brothers that tamleek mutation executed in favour of brothers was based on fraud and forgery

Defendants were in constructive possession of suit property and gave shares in produce to plaintiffs uptill 1990 when they refused share in produce on basis of tamleek mutation

Suit was partially decreed but appeals preferred by plaintiffs was accepted

Contention was that S. 42 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 was misconstrued

Onus to prove issues was on plaintiffs that had not been properly discharged

Validity

When execution of disputed tamleek was denied by plaintiffs onus to prove the same shifted upon defendants being its beneficiaries

Section 42(7) of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 stated that there must be at least two identifying witnesses including preferably lamberdar of the same village

Record revealed that disputed tamleek was sanctioned in a village eight miles away from the village where suit property was situated

Sanction of tamleek Mutation by lumberdar of another village made case of defendants doubtful and his non-production as a witness by defendant also cast serious doubts about genuineness of tamleek mutation

Plaintiffs had categorically denied execution of tamleek mutation in favour of defendants by denying their thumb impressions

Defendants had never opted to move court for comparison of their thumb impressions which strengthened the version of plaintiffs

Revision was dismissed.

1989 SCMR 1620 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art.185(3)TamleekExecution challengedEvidence

Petitioner failed to point out any such circumstances which might lead to supposition that the lower Courts committed any substantial error of law or principle in the appraisal of the material regarding the Tamleek

Leave to appeal refused.