Case law of declaration of property bought from minors

یقیناً۔ کیس کے حقائق کا خلاصہ یہ ہے:

1. **ابتدائی سوٹ**:

- 19.10.2015 اور 02.03.2016 کو، مدعا علیہان نے اپیل کنندگان/درخواست گزاروں کے خلاف سول سوٹ نمبر 117/2015 اور 34/2016 دائر کیا۔ یہ سوٹ ڈیکلریشن، قبضے، ریونیو ریکارڈ کی اصلاح، بعض دستاویزات کی منسوخی، اور مستقل حکم امتناعی کے لیے تھے۔

- 17.06.2016 کو، اپیل کنندگان/درخواست گزاروں نے جواب دہندگان کے خلاف سول سوٹ نمبر 90/2016 دائر کیا، اسی زمین کے بارے میں ایک اعلامیہ اور دائمی حکم امتناعی طلب کیا۔

2. **استحکام اور آزمائش**:

- تینوں سوٹ کو ٹرائل کورٹ نے اکٹھا کیا تھا۔ ایشوز بنائے جانے اور شواہد ریکارڈ کیے جانے کے بعد، ٹرائل کورٹ نے مدعا علیہ کے سوٹ (117/2015 اور 34/2016) کو خارج کر دیا اور 22.12.2018 کو سوٹ نمبر 90/2016 میں اپیل کنندگان/درخواست گزاروں کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا۔

3. **اپیل**:

- دونوں فریقوں نے ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے کے خلاف ڈسٹرکٹ جج، جعفرآباد میں اپیل کی۔ ڈسٹرکٹ جج نے 31.08.2021 کے فیصلے میں ان اپیلوں کو خارج کر دیا۔

4. **نظرثانی کی درخواستیں**:

- جواب دہندگان نے پھر بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ، سبی بینچ کے سامنے سول نظرثانی کی درخواستیں دائر کیں۔ 20.06.2023 کو ہائی کورٹ نے جواب دہندگان کی نظرثانی کی درخواستوں کو جزوی طور پر منظور کیا۔ اس نے ٹرائل کورٹ اور اپیل کورٹ کے فیصلوں کو ایک طرف رکھ دیا اور مدعا علیہان کو مقدمہ کی زمین (سروے نمبر 269، 270 اور 271) کے مالک قرار دیا۔ ہائی کورٹ نے مدعا علیہان کو زمین کا قبضہ درخواست گزاروں کے حوالے کرنے کی ہدایت کی اور بعض دستاویزات کو کالعدم قرار دے دیا۔

5. ** اپیل کنندگان/درخواست گزاروں کے دعوے**:

- اپیل کنندگان/درخواست گزاروں نے دعوی کیا کہ انہوں نے 1986 میں جواب دہندگان سے زمین خریدی تھی۔ انہوں نے مزید استدلال کیا کہ جواب دہندگان کا ملکیت کا دعویٰ مناسب ثبوت سے ثابت نہیں ہوا۔

6. **جواب دہندگان کا موقف**:

- جواب دہندگان نے استدلال کیا کہ ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے نے قانونی اور حقائق پر مبنی پوزیشن کی صحیح عکاسی کی اور اسے درست اور منصفانہ قرار دیا۔

یہ حقائق زمین کی ملکیت اور ریونیو ریکارڈ میں درج لین دین کی درستگی کے تنازعہ کو مرتب کرتے ہیں۔

سپریم کورٹ نے کیس خارج کر دیا اور ھائیکورٹ کا فیصلہ برقرار رکھا ۔

cases

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan

Mrs. Justice Ayesha A. Malik

Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi

dvi/Appeat No.17-Q and Civil Petition No.257-Q of 2023

(Against the judgment dated 20.06.2023

of the High

Court

of Balochistan,

Sibi Bench

SP. A CMA . KY;'lWPJZQf

Noorullah and others

torts

No.85 and 86

202 1)

. .

.Petitioners

(in both cases)

VERSUS

Ghulam Murtaza and others

.. .Respondents

(in both cases)

+ + + + +

For the Appellant/ Petitioner(s) :

(in both cases)

For Respondents(1-5) :

(in both cases)

Mr. Jahan Zeb Khan Jadoon,

ASC

Mr. Abdul Sattar Kakar, ASC

For the department:

Muhammad Zareef,

Naib Tehsildar

Shaukat Ali, Patwari

10.11.2023.

Date of hearing:

JUDGMBNT

Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J.- Through these

(C.A. No. 17-Q of 2023 and C.P. No.257-Q of 2023, fled under Articles 185 (2)(d) and

185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, respectively)

having akin questions of law and facts, the appellants/

petitioners have assailed the judgment dated 20.06.2023 passed

by the High Court of Balochistan, Sibi Bench, whereby revision

C.A. No. 17-Q & C.P. No.257-Q of 2023

t+'

petitions filed by the respondents were decided in the following

terms : -

'For afore discussion, the instant Civil Revision Petition

No.85/2021 is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and

decree dated 22 December, 2018 passed by the Trial Court

and impugned judgment and decree dated 31 August, 2021

passed by the Appellate Court are set aside. Suit

Nos.117/2015 and 34/2016 instituted by the petitioners are

partly decreed. Petitioners are declared as owners of the

suit land bearing survey Nos. 269, 270 and 27 1 measuring

48 acres 0- Rod 0-Pole. Respondents Nos.5, 6 and 7 are

directed to handover possession of the decreed land to the

petitioners. Mutation No.308(Ex:P/4) and contract of sale

dated 27 June, 2000 (Ex:D-9) are declared void and after

handing over possession of the suit land/decreed land to

the petitioners, respondents are perpetually restrainedfrom

any kind of interference. Petitioners’ suit No.117/2015 to

the extent of suit land bearing survey Nos. min 272 and 273

is dismissed and to the extent of suit land bearing survey

Nos. min 272 and 273, the impugned judgment and decree

passed by the Courts below in Civil Suit No.90/2016

instituted by the respondents are upheld. ”

Tersely, facts of the case are that on 19.10.2015 and

02.03.2016, the respondents filed Civil Suits No. 117/2015 (for

declaration, possession and correction of entries in the revenue record and perpetual

injunction) and 34 /20 16 (for declaration, carrcelation of instrument and

perpetual injunction) against the appellants/petitioners, whereas on

17.06.2016, the appellants/petitioners filed Civil Suit No.90/

2016 (for declaration and perpetual injunction) against the respondents,

which were consolidated by the trial Court. After framing of

issues and recording of the evidence, Suits No.117/2015 and

34/2016 were dismissed, whereas Suit No.90/2016 was decreed

C.A. No.17-Q & C.P. No.257.Q of 2023

by the trial Court through a consolidated judgment dated

22.12.2018.

Being aggrieved with the said judgment, both the

parties filed appeals before the District Judge, Jaffarabad, which

met the fate of dismissal olde judgment dated 31.08.2021. Such

decision, when assailed by the respondents before the High

Court by filing civil revisions, the same have been decided in the

terms mentioned above bride judgment dated 20.06.2023,

impugned herein.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners states

that the High Court has not appreciated the facts so also the law

in its true perspective; that the impugned judgment has been

passed without application of judicious mind; that the impugned

judgment is suffering from misreading and non-reading of

material evidence available on the record; that the respondents

have no locus stancE to claim the ownership of the suit land

falling in khasra Nos.269, 270 and 271 and that the impugned

judgment is not tenable in the eyes of law.

5 .

Conversely, learned counsel representing the

respondents has faithfully defended the impugned judgment.

6. We have given anxious consideration to the

contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and

scanned the material available on the record with their able

assistance .

7. The appellants/petitioners claimed that the land in

question falling in khasra Nos.269, 270 and 271 was purchased

C.A. No.17-Q & C.P. No.257-Q of 2023

by them from respondents on 02.09.1986 against a sale

consideration of Rs.2,45,000/- and since the respondents were

reluctant to transfer the same, thus a contract of sale was

executed on 27.06.2000 vide mutation No.308 dated 11.08.2000.

The respondent (Ghulam Murtaza) , while recording his

statement on 11.02.2017 before the trial Court has mentioned

his age as 45 years, which indicates that at the time of purchase

of land in 1986, he was fourteen years of age. Similarly,

respondent (Nasreen) was also a minor in 1986, therefore alleged

sale of the land in question in this behalf is also void. For ease of

reference, Section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872 reads as under:-

“Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of

majority according to the law to which he is subject and

who is of sound mind, and is not disqualifIed from

contracting by any law to which he is subject. ”

It is obvious that a minor is incompetent to enter into a legal sale

contract of his property, hence the sale transactions made were

void. In 1986, the actual owner of the suit land was predecessorin-interest of the respondents, namely, Ahmed Khan, but neither

any documentary proof of such sale was adduced in the evidence

nor any witness of the sale transaction was produced during the

case proceedings, thus how could the appellants/petitioners

purchase the suit land from the respondents in the afore-noted

year.

8. It transpired from the record that the alleged sale was

made in 1986 when the respondents, Ghulam Murtaza and

Ghulam Mustafa, were minors. The appellants/petitioners have

badly failed to prove execution of mutation No.308 by

summoning two attesting witnesses i.e. Assistant Collector and

the Patulari as per Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. See Abdul

Rasheed through L.Rs. and others versus Manzoor Ahmed and

others (PLD 2007 SC 287) and Muhammad Muneer versus Mst.

Feezan (PLD 2021 SC 538).

9. We are of the candid view that the impugned

judgment passed by the High Court has taken note of all aspects

of the matter, either legal or factual, and the inference drawn is

duly supported not only by the law but also by the record. The

impugned judgment is well within the remit of law and based on

sound/cogent reasoning. Learned counsel for the appellants/

petitioners has failed to point out any infirmity or illegality so

also misreading and non-reading of evidence on the record which

could persuade us to interfere in the impugned judgment.

IO. For what has been discussed above, these cases being

meritless are dismissed. No order as to costs.

Islamabad, the

10th November. 2023

NorAppro

wi for reporting

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.