Case law of declaration of property bought from minors
 |
| 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 ۔
IT
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
of
202 1)
2
i
r
. .
.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. ”
2.
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
Z;
C.A. No.17-Q & C.P. No.257.Q of 2023
by the trial Court through a consolidated judgment dated
22.12.2018.
3.
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
It
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
Comments
Post a Comment