Mutation

No reason prompting the donor to gift out the disputed property to the petitioners, excluding his daughters (lawful heirs), had been impleaded, asserted and proved by the petitioners in their pleadings (written statement) and evidence

It is rare for a gift to be made without some reasons like affection or in reward of some sincere service.

Held: Oral gift has two parts i.e.firstly the fact of the oral gift which has to be independently established by proving through cogent and reliable evidence the three necessary ingredients of a valid gift, and secondly mutation on the basis of an oral gift has to be independently established and proved by adopting procedure provided in the Land Revenue Act, 1967, as well as the evidentiary aspects of the same in terms of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Petitioners could not lead any cogent, strong, unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence with regards to first part of alleged oral gift

Petitioners could not produce the stamp vendor, scribe, marginal witnesses, identifying witness, sub-registrar and revenue officials as well as Patwari, meaning thereby the best available evidence was withheld by the petitioners, which raised a serious adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Matters pertained to inheritable property, so the petitioners being alleged donees were under heavy burden to prove valid execution of oral gift because he could not take benefit from the shortcomings in the evidence of respondents, rather he had to stand on his own legs

Leave to appeal was refused, in circumstances.

A mutation confers no title and once a mutation is challenged, the party relying thereon is bound to revert to the original transaction, which resulted into the entry of attestation of such mutation

In the present case, the petitioners were precluded from questioning the legality of a previous Government order at later juncture, as they failed to challenge the same at proper forum and the same had become past and closed transaction

Past and closed transaction could not be reopened in the garb of another ancillary issue

Petition, lacking substance, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mere reliance on long-standing entries is of no avail when correctness and legality of those entries through independent, cogent and unimpeachable evidence is not proved.

Mutation entries are maintained solely for fiscal purposes and by themselves neither confer nor extinguish ownership rights

Ownership of immoveable property cannot be established merely by a mutation entry.

The subject plots were earmarked for public amenities-namely, a "Culture Center" and a "Hospital" as per the approved Layout Plan of the Housing Scheme

Record clearly showed that the Builder unlawfully alienated said amenity plots in contravention of the approved plan, which was impermissible under the law and public policy

The land reserved for amenity purposes in a sanctioned housing scheme cannot be converted, sold or utilized for any purpose other than that originally approved by the competent planning authority

Any such transaction was void and conferred no title, even upon a subsequent purchaser

The sale of amenity plots amounted to an illegality; the purchaser may, if advised, seek civil remedy against the Builder for recovery of his consideration, since the sale itself was null and void

The plea of bona fide purchase advanced by the applicant could not override the public interest or the sanctity of the approved layout plan

The doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice does not apply when the sale itself is prohibited by law or is in respect of property incapable of private ownership

Thus, the petitioner' claim could not sustain as it was conclusively established that the sale and corresponding mutation of the amenity plots were unlawful, void ab initio and against the public interest

The petitioner's plea of bona fide purchase holds no legal weight in respect of amenity plots that could not be transferred or owned privately under the governing laws and planning regulations

Both subordinate authorities had passed well-reasoned and justified orders supported by law and factual record

Board of Revenue directed the District Administration and the concerned Director, Town Planning Authority, to inquire about illegal sale of subject amenity-plots and directions issued in present order were to be complied with against the delinquents

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Illegal approval of any mutation by Revenue Officer has no bearing on the title and can be treated as a nullity.

Sons did not get exhibited the signatures of the attesting witnesses, thus, the validity of gift mutation remained unproved.

Gift mutations were not sanctioned in the common assembly of the village in oblivion of S. 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 (Act), which suggested the existence of mischief of fraud in the transaction and such flaw necessarily vitiated the validity of the gift mutations

Entrench intent and objective of S. 42 of the Act is to eliminate element of fraud, collusion or secrecy in the transaction as well as to maintain the sanctity of the transaction.

Withdrawal of suit/appeal on the basis of compromise by two sisters (plaintiffs) with brothers (defendants) after receiving their share in the inheritance

Effect

Suit filed by the respondents/daughters was dismissed, but the appeal was allowed

Validity

Respondent substantially dissipated the onus, thus, being beneficiaries of the gift mutations burden was shifted upon the petitioners to prove the validity of the gift initially by describing the day, date, time, names of the witnesses and venue of the transaction as well the offer made by the donor and acceptance of the offer of gift by the petitioners as well as delivery of possession of gift property in their pleading and said asserted stance should be proved through believable and corroborative evidence as well as to prove subsequent event regarding registration of gift deed independently, however, petitioners failed to prove the ingredients of gift, which legal flaw vitiated the validity of gift deed

Non-proving of the asserted stance of gift transaction through corroborative, credible and trustworthy evidence was considered a material flaw, which dismantled the very foundation of the stance of the petitioners

Petitioners tried to deprive the respondent from her inherited property by committing fraud and getting the gift mutations entered in their favour, whereas, such like custom/practice of depriving of the females from their accrued share in the inheritance had seriously been deprecated

One of the plaintiffs (daughter) appeared before the Trial Court and got her statement recorded on oath to the effect that she had received her share from the petitioners and that statement was not controverted by the petitioners, thus, being the beneficiary of the gift transaction they themselves had dismantled the validity of the gift mutations

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Having concluded that there was absolutely no evidence regarding transaction of impugned gift and that a mutation could not by itself be considered a document of title, it was evident that even the impugned mutation had not been proved in terms of S. 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, which required that such mutation had to be presented and sanctioned in the common assembly (Jalsa-e-Aam) of the estate concerned

Civil revision was allowed and suit filed by petitioner/plaintiff (female heir) was decreed.

Entering a mutation or reporting factum of acquisition of any right in an estate to patwari is a mere ministerial act which would not confer or extinguish any right in the property

Principle stated

Under S.42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 no witnesses or respectable are required either to accompany the person reporting acquisition of such an interest to patwari not to witness the entering of a mutation in said connection

Entering a mutation or reporting the factum of acquisition of any right in an estate to the Patwari is a mere ministerial act, which does not confer or extinguish any right in any property and thus nothing really hinges on the same.

Oral gift has two parts i.e. firstly the fact of the oral gift which has to be independently established by proving through cogent and reliable evidence the three necessary ingredients of a valid gift and secondly mutation on the basis of an oral gift has to be independently established and proved by adopting procedure provided in the Land Revenue Act, 1967 as well as the evidentiary aspects of the same in terms of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Petitioner could not lead any cogent, strong, unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence with regards to first part of alleged oral gift

Matters pertained to inheritable property, so the petitioner being alleged done was under heavy burden to prove valid execution of oral gift because he could not take benefit of the shortcomings in the evidence of respondents, rather he had to stand on his own legs

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Non-mentioning of necessary details as to offer and acceptance of gift in the written statement/pleadings of the petitioners

Effect

Evidence beyond the scope of pleadings

Admissibility

Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, however, the Appellate Court accepted the appeal of the respondent and decreed the suit

Validity

Basic ingredients of a valid gift are offer, acceptance and delivery of possession

No description of making of offer and acceptance of the same by the deceased donor had been given in the written statement of the petitioner, which were necessary to plead and prove

Same had not even been deposed during the evidence either by the petitioner or his witnesses because a party cannot lead any evidence beyond its pleadings

No illegality and irregularity as well as wrong exercise of jurisdiction was found in the findings of the Appellate Court

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Execution of the mutation was not denied by the plaintiff/executant himself, thus, examination of attesting witness was not fatal

Best evidence about the contents of a document is the document itself.

Once a document has been proved in accordance with law, the genuineness of its contents could be presumed and the rule that the "document speaks for itself' (acta probant sese ipsa) could be deployed

Rationale behind the presumptions attached to written documents stem out of both principles as well as policy

Presumptions are a matter of principle because written documents are, by their very nature, to be accorded a higher degree of credibility as opposed to oral evidence; otherwise, it would bring uncertainty and chaos if written documents (and valuable rights, if any, attached to them) are allowed to be set aside on the basis of oral evidence.

Mutation per se is not a deed of title and is merely indicative of some previous oral transaction between the parties; so, whenever any mutation is challenged burden squarely lies upon the beneficiary of such mutation to prove not only the mutation but also the original transaction.

Final attestation of mutation was held in year 2001 in presence of predecessor-in-interest of respondents / plaintiffs but they did not raise any objection at the time of final attestation

Record of rights, under S. 52 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, carried presumption of truth

Strong evidence was required to rebut the allegation and there was no evidence on record that mutation entries were made in the name of petitioner / defendant with collaboration of Revenue staff

There was no evidence brought on record that mutation entries were not conducted in accordance with law

Both the Courts below erred to draw the conclusion that burden of proof was on beneficiary of mutation on whose name entries were made

Such conclusion was against the provision of S.52 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Mutation entries carried presumption of correctness and could not be lightly reversed in absence of strong evidence in rebuttal

Burden of proof was on the party claiming title and possession of property

Party who desired a judgment from Court of competent jurisdiction in his favour was to discharge the burden on truthful and consistent evidence

High Court set aside concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below as the same were result of misreading and non-reading of evidence resultantly suit filed by respondents / plaintiff was dismissed

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

In case a mutation is challenged then the beneficiary is under onus to prove factum of the underlying transaction which includes payment of consideration.

Contention of the petitioners that earlier a decision was made on revenue side, therefore, subsequently civil suit could not be filed

Validity

Any decision on the revenue side, could not operate as bar on a subsequent civil suit, more particularly, when question of fraud is involved in respect of which the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities was barred, for the reason that the proceedings before the revenue officers and or the revenue courts are summarily conducted without recording of evidence

Section 11 of the C.P.C. that is based on doctrine of res judicata clearly stipulates that no subsequent suit should be entertained in which the matter is directly and substantially the same in a former suit between the same parties and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, S.11 of the C.P.C. is applicable only where earlier as well as the subsequent proceedings are before the courts, which are competent to decide both the matters

Revenue court and civil court are not vested with the similar jurisdiction rather their jurisdiction is mutually exclusive to each other in certain matters

Jurisdiction of civil court is barred in terms of S.172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 only with respect to matters exclusively vested in the jurisdiction of revenue courts under the said provision and civil suit is always maintainable under S.53 of the Act to establish right or title in respect of immovable property where the revenue court lacks jurisdiction

Revision petitions were dismissed.

Respondents/plaintiffs produced 04 witnesses, who categorically supported their version that donor expired prior to the execution of the impugned oral gift

Inquiry report also reflected that the date of death as claimed by the petitioners/donees being beneficiaries of an oral transaction, was recorded in the relevant record by the petitioners after a gap of more than 10 years challenging already existing entry related to death recorded by the respondents, which raised serious doubt about veracity thereof

In case the statement of scribe of inquiry report had not been recorded in the suit of respondents, matter could be examined from another angle without placing any reliance on the said inquiry report and taking benefit from the same that a mutation by itself does not create any title unless it can be substantiated to be backed by a valid transaction more particularly if the transaction was in the nature of Hiba depriving legal heirs of the donor

Petitioners were not real paternal grandsons of the donor

Details were conspicuously absent as neither the time of offer and acceptance of the gift had been mentioned in the written statement nor any witness had been produced in support of the said contentions

Petitioners failed to prove necessary ingredient of the oral gift depriving the respondents, who were admittedly legal heirs of the donor

Revisions were dismissed accordingly.

Mutation does not confer title, however, it may be considered as a piece of evidence if it is effected in accordance with law.

Plaintiffs/respondents averred that their owned land was exchanged with the father of certain (4) defendants which they took possession of

In exchange plaintiffs/respondents got possession of a suit property from father of said four defendants in whose name the same was registered

Other two defendants/petitioners with collaboration of revenue staff fraudulently transferred the suit property in their names through fake sale deed/documents

Trial Court dismissed the suit

Appeal was accepted by Appellate Court

Validity

Nothing was brought on record to suggest that the mutation entries in question had fraudulently been carried out by the petitioners in their favour

Attorney of plaintiffs deposed that plaintiffs along with said four defendants carried a subsequent agreement and admitted that their elders had exchanged the properties 30 to 35 years before

Perusal of oral/documentary evidence including the said agreement did not disclose any fraudulent transfer of property in question by petitioners

Said agreement was silent with regard to description/mutation numbers of property and did not disclose any cause of action

Plaintiffs/respondents had failed to discharge burden of proof

No question was put to defendants' witnesses with regard to fraudulent transfer

Suit property was not claimed by the predecessors in their life time despite remaining alive for more than 20 years after transfer, and plaintiffs and said four defendants kept mum since long time

Lacunas of defendants could not be extended in favour of plaintiffs

Revision petition was accepted and impugned judgment/decree of appellate Court was set aside.

In case of inheritance mutation, the limitation would not run, especially when there was an evidence that the same was sanctioned by concealment or the other side had been compensating the legal heir with the produce or in shape of money.

Respondent/ plaintiff that he was the owner of suit property; that he had never sold his property through mutation and had never received amount of Rs.200,000/-; and that said mutation of 1994 and subsequent mutation were illegal

Petitioners / defendants submitted written statement contending that property had been sold to them by the respondent after receiving valuable consideration; that he appeared before the revenue hierarchy for the purpose of attestation of mutation; that the said mutation was subsequently misplaced which fact was reported to the Assistant Commissioner concerned by the Halqa Patwari and the fresh mutation was prepared

Suit was concurrently decreed

Validity

Petitioner stated in cross-examination that he did not remember the exact date/month/year when he had purchased the suit property from the plaintiff

No Lambardar/ Member of the Union Council was present

Witnesses of the mutation in question who were alive had not appeared as witnesses

Then Halqa Patwari, despite being alive was also not summoned by the petitioner to prove the mutation in question

Petitioner through his oral/documentary evidence failed to discharge the onus to prove sale of property through the testimony of reliable marginal witnesses by not producing despite they being admittedly alive/available

Copy of Khasra Girdawari showed the suit property as being in possession of the respondent

Petitioners failed to bring on record any details pertaining to the sale of the suit property in their favour

No Rapat Roznamcha was produced either before the Trial Court which could have suggested that the transaction did actually take place

Petitioners were guilty of withholding their best evidence and naturally an adverse presumption could be drawn against the petitioners on the basis thereof

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Mere attestation of mutation of sale does not furnish proof of the sale and whenever any such transaction is questioned, the onus lies on the beneficiary to prove not only the transaction but also every ingredient thereof as also the executed document as token of its acknowledgment.

Any person who is acquiring title through mutation, the burden of proof of proving transaction embodied in the mutation is upon him

Mutation itself does not confer or extinguish any right or title and the persons deriving title thereunder have to prove that the transferor did part with the ownership of the property, the subject of mutation in favour of the transferee and that the mutation was duly entered and attested

If the mutation on the basis of which right in the property is claimed, is disputed, the onus of proving the correctness of mutation and genuineness of the transaction contained therein would be on the party claiming right on the basis of such mutation.

Disputed question of fact regarding title could not be decided by the Revenue Officer/Revenue Court by way of mutation proceedings which were summary in nature.

Petitioners contended that petitioners were recorded owners of the properties; they also owned possession of shamilat land; that father of respondents taking benefit of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners got the properties recorded in his name as lathband buzgars at the time of settlement regarding unsettled lands

Senior Member Board of Revenue accepted Revision petition of respondents (impugned order) and directed the Deputy Commissioner/Collector for disposal

Validity

Order sheet revealed that neither any summons was served upon petitioner, nor ex-parte proceeding had been initiated, and petitioner was not heard

Senior Member Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to directly entertain any revision after lapse of longstanding entries i.e. 34 years

No order was passed by subordinate Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner

Respondents jumped over more than two lower forums

Respondents themselves disputed the title of the properties and Revenue Court lacked jurisdiction in matter whereby title was to be determined

Respondents concealed the civil suit and appeal before High Court from the Senior Member, hence, did not go before Revenue hierarchy with clean hands

Impugned order was in derogation of Ss.45 & 53 of the Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

High Court set aside the impugned order and quashed the proceeding before Deputy Commissioner

Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.

In presence of mutation entries in favour of one party, oral evidence produced by the opponent had no substantial value with regard to the ownership of the property in dispute

Mutation entry was a document bearing presumption of correctness unless rebutted.

Suit for declaration filed by respondent claiming that land was provided on lease but petitioners fraudulently started claiming ownership on pretext of alleged oral sale in consideration of certain amount

Petitioners contested the suit alleging that respondent sold the land and received/acknowledged the consideration but unlawfully leased land of his sisters through written lease agreement and that petitioner paid the sisters as mediation which prompted respondent to challenge the sale

Suit was dismissed by Trial Court but the same was decreed by the Appellate Court

Petitioner contended that fraud was alleged in plaint against Revenue Officer but he was not made party to the plaint; that suit was decreed solely on the ground that provisions of S. 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, were not complied with; that attesting witnesses identified as Patidars and qualified as village-respectables had identified the respondent; that any irregularity in compliance of S. 42 would not render transaction void; that attesting witnesses appeared and endorsed oral sale and stated that parties were known to them; that such statement of attesting witnesses was not cross examined; that Patwari Halqa/revenue officer appeared and proved the factum of recording/ sanctioning of impugned mutations; that possession of the petitioner was an admitted fact; that respondent alleged coronary ailment as pretext for avoiding lawfully conducted sale transaction but failed to establish the fact alleged

Petitioner referred to the exhibits, showing hospital visits / medical treatment, to substantiate failure on the part of the petitioner to prove plea of alleged ailment

Validity

Written statement was silent regarding the alleged oral sale

No details of persons/ witnesses privy to alleged transaction were provided

No convincing evidence was led by the petitioners to prove delivery of possession pursuant to alleged transaction of oral sale

Written statement was silent

Copies of register Roznamcha Waqiati depicted that possession was delivered, but no evidence led to prove the same

Delivery of possession without receipt of consideration was not appealing to reason

Patwari Halqa admitted that signatures/thumb impression of respondent and the petitioners were not on Roznamcha Waqiati

No mention that the acquirer of alleged right/petitioner was even present before Patwari Halqa, when allegedly factum of oral sale was recorded

One of the attesting witnesses of the mutation had admitted that land was leased to the petitioners by respondent

Petitioners failed to prove that possession was delivered pursuant to oral sale

Patwari Halqa and Revenue Officer alleged that payment of consideration was not made before them

Place of payment of consideration amount was not mentioned in the written statement

Separate considerations for each mutation as mentioned in Roznamcha Waqiati were not disclosed in written statement

Witnesses differed in their statements regarding consideration, place of alleged sale and witnesses/ purchasers present at the time of alleged sale/mutation

Earlier statements as referred to in the impugned mutations could not be proved

Copy of Part-Patwar did not contain order of revenue officer

Discrepancy as to reflection of attendance of parties in Part-Patwar and Part-Sarkar remained irreconciled and substantially affected the credence of alleged transaction

Witnesses and Patwari Halqa had not even pleaded their status as Patidars

No compelling evidence was available to believe that respondent was present and properly identified for the purposes of meeting statutory requirements

Petitioners failed to prove alleged oral transaction, payment of consideration, execution of impugned mutations

Factum of possession under arrangement of oral sale was deficient / unconvincing

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

No refuge could be taken behind impugned mutations on the premise of presumption of correctness, if a party failed to prove it.

Respondent/plaintiff challenged the mutation based on hibanama in favour of the petitioner, (being her brother in law as well as the foster son of her father, in collusion with his wife (real sister of the respondent),claiming that the said hibanama was based on fraud/misrepresentation and that the impugned mutations recorded/sanctioned on basis of such hibanama was to be cancelled

Petitioners contested the suit by filing written statement accompanied by an application for rejection of the plaint on the ground of being barred by limitation

Trial Court allowed the application and dismissed the suit after hearing arguments of both the parties

District Court allowed the respondent's appeal and remanded the suit

Petitioners contended that the suit was barred by time as the same was filed after 17 years of the mutation entry; that no cause of action was given in the plaint; and that no particulars of fraud were mentioned in either of the plaints

Validity

One of the petitioners being real sister of the respondent did not choose to challenge the impugned mutations/hibanamaas as her interest was not adverse to that of other petitioner

Contents of the plaint clearly revealed that not only fraud had been alleged but even particulars in respect thereto had been delineated quite clearly

Respondent had also clearly mentioned the time when she discovered (in December, 2017) about the allegedly fraudulent mutations / hibanamas

Limitation would start to run from the said time (December, 2017)

Question of limitation could not possibly qualify as a pure question of law on account of what had been stated in the plaints

For determining the point of commencement of the limitation period, Trial Court was required to determine whether respondent had actually gained knowledge in December, 2017 and on what basis and from whom and how and only

In the present case the question of limitation was clearly a mixed question of law and facts

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Both witnesses of gift did not state about fulfillment of third ingredient of gift i.e. delivery of possession of suit property by donor to donees

Respondents / defendants (donees) were beneficiaries who failed to prove factum of disputed gift and gift mutation which was not sustainable under the law

Each entry in revenue record had given fresh cause of action to aggrieved person

Adverse entries in revenue record, even if allowed, but remained unchallenged, did not have effect of extinguishing rights of a party against whom such entries had been made

Any transaction of document which was result of fraud or misrepresentation could neither be perpetuated nor protected on the ground of expiry of period of limitation, whenever such transaction was assailed in Court of law

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below as the same suffered from mis-reading and nonreading of evidence

High Court decreed the suit filed by petitioner / plaintiff and cancelled mutation in question as the same was result of fraud and misrepresentation

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiff was that she was owner of suit property and impugned mutations were illegal whereas defendants contended that suit property had been transferred in their favour through gift

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Limitation did not run against a void transaction nor efflux of time could extinguish right of inheritance

Mutation was not a proof of title and beneficiary was bound to prove original transaction

Once it was established that plaintiff was entitled for inheritance then she would become co-sharer in each and every inch of the property of deceased predecessor

Plaintiff was entitled to inherit the left-over of her deceased father as she had become co-sharer in the property on death of her father to the extent of her share

Co-sharers could not alienate the property more than their shares

Each co-sharer would be deemed to be owner in joint property and anyone of them could not act against rights and liabilities of other co-sharers

Donee excluding any heir from inheritance was required to establish the original transaction of gift

Nothing was on record with regard to declaration of gift or its acceptance

Mere transfer of possession to the donee was not sufficient to constitute a valid gift

Gift deed must justify the disinheritance of an heir which in the present case was lacking

Transfer of property should be for consideration and transferee must have acted in good faith taking reasonable care to ascertain that transferor had the power to transfer the property

Subsequent purchaser of suit property had not taken care of important aspect of the matter

Right of transferee should be protected from the share of defendants and not from the share of plaintiff

Principle of bona fide purchaser was based on equity which could not be invoked in such a manner that might cause injustice to the others

Vendees of suit property should claim their right, if any, from their transferors-defendants

Plaintiff being residuary of deceased should inherit from his property under Law of Sharia

Impugned judgments and decrees were based on correct appreciation of record

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiffs was that they were owners of suit property left by their mother and inheritance mutation in favour of defendants was based on fraud

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Plaintiffs were bound to prove that their mother was alive at the time of death of her predecessor-in-interest

Death Register was not in proper order and there were blank papers which could be filled in as per desire and need of any person at any time

Plaintiffs should have produced concrete, direct and cogent evidence to brush aside longstanding entries in the revenue record

Plaintiffs were required to prove that inheritance mutation was wrong and against fact

Simple narration alleging mutation of inheritance against fact was not sufficient enough to consider it otherwise

Attestation of mutation was meant for fiscal purpose and to keep the record uptodate

Plaintiffs had failed to substantiate their version with regard to specific date of death of their mother

Plaintiffs had been non-suited for insufficient evidence

No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellants challenged the validity of mutations, gift deeds and tamleek namas executed by their predecessor (owner) on the ground of fraud

Validity

Owner who had transferred the properties through mutations, gift deed and tamleek nama all pertained to the years 1949 and 1976

Said owner had remained alive till the year 1991

Registered documents were challenged by the appellants after decades through institution of suit in the year 2000

Sine qua non for the seeker to stand on its own legs, who could not be benefited for weakness, if any, of the adversary

Owner had not challenged anything in his lifetime

Inheritance opened after death of the owner of the property and not during the life

Mutations were sanctioned during life time of the owner

Appellants, being descendants, had no locus standi to challenge the mutations

Maximum period provided to seek such right was six years as per Art.120 of the Limitation Act, 1908

Courts below were quite justified to non-suit the appellants on valid reasons

Second appeal was dismissed.

Mutation per se is not deed of title and party relying upon its entries is always bound to prove transaction reflected therein.

Mutation by itself did not create or destroy an existing right; it was merely a reflection of the revenue record, authenticity/validity whereof was to be essentially ascertained in the underlying transaction.

Sole purpose of a mutation was to keep the record of rights updated and to maintain the fiscal records straight.

Concerned Tehsildar who had allegedly sanctioned the mutation and witness of the mutation i.e. the Patidar were material witnesses of the alleged gift mutation, however they were not produced for any valid reason

Presumption of Art. 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 by reason of withholding of the best evidence could be drawn against the alleged donee/petitioner

Gift mutation as well as the alleged oral gift were fictitious and the result of fraud

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Said certificate indicated that the alleged donor passed away on 12-09-1984 whereas the alleged gift mutation was entered and sanctioned on 10-02-1985 approximately four months after his death

Such patent discrepancy itself negated the case of the alleged donee regarding the property being gifted to him by way of oral gift and thereafter a gift mutation being sanctioned on the basis of such oral gift

Gift mutation as well as the alleged oral gift were fictitious and the result of fraud

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Where the validity of a gift mutation was challenged, it was incumbent upon the beneficiary to not only prove the validity and legality of the gift mutation by producing all relevant evidence but it was also necessary that the gift itself be proved through cogent and reliable evidence.

In terms of S. 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, it was obligatory that a mutation for an oral gift be sanctioned in Majlis-e-Aam so that every person of the village may have knowledge of such alienation and the possibility of fraud, collusion or secretly undertaken transaction may be eliminated.

Plaintiffs were illiterate village ladies and it was their case that their brother i.e. the defendant had procured their thumb impressions to allegedly obtain a loan for purchase of a tractor, and the same impressions were then used for purposes of the impugned mutation

In such circumstances thumb impressions would not ipso facto prove that they had knowingly and voluntarily put their thumb impressions on the documents pursuant to sale of property in favour of the defendant

Further there was nothing on record to show that the ladies had any independent advice available to them at any stage

Defendant failed to prove the sale which constituted basis of the impugned mutation or even the mutation itself

Appeal filed by defendant was dismissed.

Written statement filed by the defendant-brother was completely silent with regard to essential details of the oral sale transaction

Further, there was no mention of the value at which the land was allegedly purchased by the defendant

Plaintiffs were illiterate village ladies, who were unaware of the technicalities and worldly affairs

Defendant, real brother of the plaintiffs, was in position of a fiduciary on whose advice they were relying

Confidence and reliance of plaintiffs was betrayed by the defendant, who admitted in his cross-examination that neither the children nor husband of any of his sisters was present when the impugned mutation was sanctioned

Such fact casted serious doubts about the validity of transaction and the sort of advice (if any) that the ladies received and their understanding of what was being transacted

Person who attested the mutation being one of its marginal witnesses expressed his ignorance about whether the sale consideration was paid before the attesting officer or at home

Said witness conceded that it was not paid in his presence and also conceded that possession was not delivered to the defendant in lieu of the transaction rather he was exclusively enjoying possession of the property in question from the day of death of father of the parties

Most material witnesses namely the Revenue Officer and Halqa Patwari,who entered and attested the impugned mutation, were withheld and no effort was made to produce them in Court

Defendant failed to prove the sale which constituted basis of the mutation or even the mutation itself

Appeal by defendant was dismissed.

Mutation was not a title deed and it did neither confer any title nor take away any right.

Contention of plaintiff was that defendant had not paid all the consideration amount of suit property and impugned sale mutation was null and void

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Plaintiff had alleged non-payment of sale consideration of suit property and had relied upon an agreement

Defendant had not specifically denied the said agreement in his written statement

Plaintiff had not only exhibited the alleged agreement but had also produced its scribe, marginal witnesses, notary public and stamp vendor

Defendant was required to prove the payment of entire sale consideration but he had failed to produce any witness in that regard

Statement of defendant with regard to payment of consideration amount was self-contradictory

Defendant had not come in the Court with clean hands and was not a truthful witness

Plaintiff was still in possession on the suit property and defendant had failed to prove the payment of sale consideration

Essential ingredients of "sale" were missing and there was no sale in the eye of law

Mutation was not a title deed and it did neither confer any title nor take away any right

Transfer of suit property in favour of defendant and impugned sale mutation as well as registered deed had automatically became null and void

Trial Court had decreed the suit with regard to recovery of outstanding sale consideration and had declared impugned mutation null and void despite the fact that plaintiff was entitled to any one of the two reliefs

Impugned mutation being void one could not sustain legally, in circumstances

Decree to the extent of recovery of outstanding sale consideration was set aside and findings to the extent of declaration of impugned mutation as null and void were maintained

Revision was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner had not mentioned descriptions and boundaries of suit land and particulars of alleged sale transaction in his petition

Nothing was on record that seller of suit land was owner of the same

Transferor could transfer his right in the property to the transferee which the transferor was entitled over the property under sale

Mutation was not a title document and it did not confer any right, title or interest

Burden of proof to establish the genuineness of transfer of property lay upon the person in whose favour mutation had been attested

Transfer of the property under sale having value of Rs.100/- and upwards could be made only by a registered instrument which it was not

Alleged sale of subject land was not valid in the eye of law

Petitioner, in order to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of High Court had to establish clear legal right over the suit property

Said jurisdiction was intended to provide an expeditious remedy in a case where illegality of impugned action of executive or other Authority was floating on the surface which could be established without any inquiry

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court was discretionary in nature which could not be allowed to be invoked by a party who had demonstrated slackness and laxity on his part

Party who was guilty of negligence and laches was not entitled to the equitable relief which was available even otherwise to a party who had come in the Court with clean hands

Petitioner, in the present case, had no clear right or title over the suit land and he had abused the process of law

None of the parties had right or title over the subject property

Authorities were directed to ensure its interest in the suit land

Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed in limine.

Burden of proof did lie upon the person in whose favour mutation had been attested to establish the genuineness of transfer of property

Petitioners, in the present case, in order to exercise constitutional jurisdiction, should have established clear legal right over the suit property

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court was intended to provide expeditious remedy in a case where illegality of impugned action of executive or other authority was floating on the surface which could be established without any inquiry

Petitioners had failed to prove their ownership and title over the suit land

Title and ownership of suit property could not be established in constitutional petition

Petitioners should have established their title and ownership right over the suit land by adducing evidence before the Court of competent jurisdiction

Constitutional petition had been filed by the petitioners with mala fide intention to abuse the process of law

Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed in limine.