Hibba mutation not challenged in life of father .
Judgment Sheet
LAHORE HIGH COURT
RAWALPINDI BENCH RAWALPINDI
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
….
CIVIL REVISION NO.934-D of 2012
Mst. MUNAWAR JAN and 6 others
Versus
Mst. SAFAIDAN and 4 others
JUDGMENT
Date(s) of hearing:
05.12.2023 & 07.12.2023
Petitioners by:
Mr. Tanvir Iqbal, Advocate.
Respondents No.1 to 4 by:
M/s Ch. Afrasiab Khan and Abdul
Basit Khan Tanoli, Advocates.
Respondent No.5 by:
Nemo.
MIRZA VIQAS RAUF, J. This petition invokes the
revisional jurisdiction of this Court as contemplated under Section
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) (hereinafter referred
to as “C.P.C.”) against the judgment and decree dated 01st
November, 2012 handed down by learned District Judge,
Rawalpindi, whereby he proceeded to allow the appeal preferred by
respondents No.1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as “respondents”) as a
result setting at naught the judgment and decree dated 24th
December, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I,
Rawalpindi.
2.
The proposition involved in this petition is quite common to
our society. Abdul Rehman son of Khatar Khan was a big landlord in
the revenue estate of Daultala Tehsil Gujar Khan District
Rawalpindi. He was having two sons namely Muhammad Afsar and
Muhammad Khan whereas Aksar Jan was his daughter. Abdul
Civil Revision No.934-D of 2012
-2-
Rehman purportedly gifted a part of land measuring 101 Kanal 19
Marla (hereinafter referred to as “suit land”) to Muhammad Khan
(one of his sons) qua which mutation No.633 dated 18th September,
1962 was recorded. Abdul Rehman died in the year 1969 whereas
Muhammad Khan passed away in the year 1998, who ultimately
survived the “respondents”. The petitioners being the successors-ininterest of Muhammad Afsar instituted a suit for declaration,
separate possession through partition and injunction averring therein
that their predecessor-in-interest namely Muhammad Afsar died in
the year 1978 and after his death, they remained under the custody of
Muhammad Khan, who however died later on. It is asserted that after
demise of Muhammad Khan, the petitioners and “respondents”
started living separately on the basis of family settlement, however,
“respondents” refused to give half share in the “suit land” on the plea
that it is not joint being gifted to their predecessor-in-interest by
Abdul Rehman. On further inquiry by the petitioners it revealed on
them that a gift mutation No.633 was sanctioned on 18th September,
1962 in favour of Muhammad Khan, which as per their stance was
the outcome of fraud and misrepresentation having no effect upon
their rights.
3.
Suit was resisted by the “respondents” on multiple grounds
through a written statement. On account of serious challenge on both
sides as reflected in their respective pleadings, the trial court
proceeded to frame multiple issues. After framing of issues both the
sides produced their evidence and upon completion of the same, suit
was decreed vide judgment dated 24th December, 2011. Feeling
aggrieved the “respondents” preferred an appeal before the learned
District Judge, Rawalpindi. The appeal was ultimately allowed by
way of impugned judgment and decree.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that being the
beneficiaries, it was though obligatory for the “respondents” in the
first instance to plead the gift transaction but no such assertion was
made in the written statement. He added that evidence can only be
led with regard to a fact, which finds mention in the pleadings.
Civil Revision No.934-D of 2012
-3-
Learned counsel contended that suit was mainly resisted by the
“respondents” on the ground of limitation. He added that in case of
fraud no limitation runs against the person, who has been defrauded.
Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise the proceedings
relating to sanctioning of gift mutation are tainted with material
irregularities. It is contended with vehemence that gift was never
pleaded and mutation by itself is not a document validating the
original transaction. Learned counsel emphasized that suit was
initially rightly decreed but the appellate court while forming a
contra view has grossly misread the evidence. It is argued that the
impugned judgment and decree is not tenable under the law. In
support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on FAQIR
ALI and others versus SAKINA BIBI and others (PLD 2022 Supreme Court
85), NOOR DIN (DECEASED) through LRs versus PERVAIZ AKHTAR and
others (2023 SCMR 1928), Mst. RABIA GULA and others versus
MUHAMMAD JANAN and others (2022 SCMR 1009), Syed KAUSAR ALI
SHAH and others versus Syed FARHAT HUSSAIN SHAH and others (2022
SCMR 1558), PRINCIPAL PUBLIC SCHOOL SANGOTA, GOVERNMENT OF
KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary and others versus
SARBILAND and others (2022 SCMR 189) and SAADAT KHAN and others
versus SHAHID-UR-REHMAN and others (PLD 2023 Supreme Court 362).
5.
Conversely, learned counsel for the “respondents” submitted
that gift was validly made. He added that the petitioners on account
of their conduct were precluded to institute the suit. Learned counsel
submitted that in pursuance to the gift mutation necessary entries
were incorporated in the revenue record and the petitioners were well
aware of the same. Learned counsel emphasized that even otherwise
the donor though remained alive for a considerable period but he
never challenged the gift transaction. Learned counsel contended that
suit was instituted by the petitioners on account of mala-fide. It is
also contended that fraud was though alleged but no particulars of
fraud were mentioned in the plaint. Learned counsel submitted that
suit was wrongly decreed by the trial court and the appellate court
was fully justified to set at naught the findings of the trial court in
the circumstances. In the last, learned counsel argued that suit was
hopelessly barred by time. In order to supplement his contentions,
Civil Revision No.934-D of 2012
-4-
learned counsel placed reliance on Mst. GRANA through Legal Heirs and
others versus SAHIB KAMALA BIBI and others (PLD 2014 Supreme Court
167), Mst. KALSOOM BEGUM versus PERAN DITTA and others (2022 SCMR
1352) and Mst. FAHEEMAN BEGUM (DECEASED) through L.Rs and others
versus ISLAM-UD-DIN (DECEASED) through L.Rs and others (2023 SCMR
1402).
6.
Heard. Record perused.
7.
“Suit land” (101 Kanal 19 Marla) was part of estate owned by
Abdul Rehman, who was Headman of village Daultala Tehsil Gujar
Khan District Rawalpindi. Abdul Rehman breathed his last on 06th
January, 1969 leaving behind two sons namely Muhammad Khan
and Muhammad Afsar as well as one daughter namely Aksar Jan.
The petitioners are the successors-in-interest of Muhammad Afsar
whereas the “respondents” are the legal heirs of Muhammad Khan.
The matter in controversy stems from mutation No.633 dated 18th
September, 1962 purportedly effected in favour of Muhammad
Khan.
8.
Before delving into the merits of the case it would be
advantageous to point out certain admitted facts, which even
otherwise are quite relevant for the matter in controversy. Gift
mutation No.633 was sanctioned on 18th September, 1962 whereas
Abdul Rehman (donor) died on 06th January, 1969. Muhammad
Khan (donee) passed away on 28th December, 1998 whereas
Muhammad Afsar, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners took his
last breath on 04th March, 1978. It would not be out of context to
mention here that Muhammad Afsar was Sub-Inspector in police
department.
9.
The points for determination before this Court are;
firstly, validity of gift transaction;
secondly, effect of non-challenging of gift by the donor and;
thirdly, limitation.
10. Adverting to the first limb of controversy it is noticed that to
this effect issue No.7 was framed. Being the plaintiffs, it is the claim
Civil Revision No.934-D of 2012
-5-
of the petitioners that gift mutation is a product of fraud. Contrary to
this the “respondents” pleaded that gift transaction was valid one. In
terms of Order VI Rule 4 of the “C.P.C.” a party pleading any
misrepresentation or fraud is obliged to narrate particulars to that
effect. When plaint is examined in this context it is clearly lacking
any details or particulars that how the transaction was tainted with
fraud. In order to prove their claim, the petitioners examined
Muhammad Rizwan being one of the petitioners as PW1. In his
statement he reiterated the facts contained in the plaint and asserted
that Abdul Rehman has though never made any gift in his lifetime,
but Muhammad Khan was since Headman, so in connivance with the
revenue officials, he succeeded in getting the gift mutation effected
in his favour. Bashir Ahmad being close relative of the petitioners as
well as the “respondents” appeared as PW2. He stated that
Muhammad Afsar and Muhammad Khan partitioned their property
in the year 2003 and he came to know about the gift in the said year.
During his cross-examination Bashir Ahmad admitted that Mst.
Munawar Jan, petitioner No.1 gifted him portion of land from the
share of her inherited property. He also admitted that one
Muhammad Ashiq had filed a suit against Abdul Rehman and
Muhammad Khan wherein he acted as special attorney on behalf of
the latter and the suit was dismissed finally. He also admitted that
Abdul Rehman has rightly made the gift in favour of Muhammad
Khan. Though there were certain pivotal admissions in the statement
of Muhammad Rizwan (PW1) as well but the statement of Bashir
Ahmad (PW2) was quite fatal to the claim of the petitioners.
11. There can be no cavil that mutation by itself is not a document
of title and it is only an acknowledgment of the original transaction,
which has taken place prior to the incorporating/sanctioning of
mutation and a person relying upon mutation has to establish the
original transaction in the first instance. The facts of this case are,
however, bit different. The “respondents” though did not plead the
original transaction in clear words in their written statement but they
while responding to para No.4 of the plaint and denying the
averments of the para, asserted that the original owner Abdul
Civil Revision No.934-D of 2012
-6-
Rehman made a valid gift of “suit land” in favour of Muhammad
Khan through mutation No.633 attested on 18th September, 1962
whereafter the gift mutation was incorporated in the revenue record
and the donee (Muhammad Khan) enjoyed the possession as well as
ownership of the “suit land”. They further asserted that Abdul
Rehman (donor) and Muhammad Afsar, predecessor-in-interest of
the petitioners accepted the donee as lawful owner of the “suit land”
and never challenged the gift mutation in their lifetime.
12. Article 113 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ordains that
no fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or
their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which before the
hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or
which by any rule or pleading in force at the time they are deemed to
have admitted by their pleadings. To the above effect when the
statement of Bashir Ahmad (PW2) is analyzed, he in his crossexamination deposed as under :-
In view of admissions with regard to the validity of gift by the
petitioners’ own witness, there remains no necessity for the
“respondents” to assert or lead any material to that effect. It clearly
evinces from the record that after effecting of gift mutation necessary
entries were incorporated in the revenue record for the subsequent
years.
13. Coming to the question of effect of non-challenging of gift by
the donor, it is noticed that Abdul Rehman survived two sons namely
Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Afsar as well as one daughter
namely Aksar Jan. Donor was owner of about 300 Kanal land in
Daultala Tehsil Gujar Khan District Rawalpindi, however, he gifted
Civil Revision No.934-D of 2012
-7-
“suit land” to his son namely Muhammad Khan. It appears that as
Muhammad Afsar was in the police department, so the donor being
father of Muhammad Khan (donee) opted to gift the “suit land” in
his favour, so as to safeguard his rights as he was unemployed.
Leaving aside this aspect it is an oft repeated principle of law that
where in his lifetime donor did not challenge the validity of gift, his
successors would be precluded to throw any challenge to such
transaction on the principle of acquiescence and estoppel.
14. In the present case gift mutation was sanctioned on 18th
September, 1962 and the donor though remained alive till 06th
January, 1969 but he did not challenge the gift in favour of his son
(Muhammad Khan). Furthermore the petitioners are claiming right in
the “suit land” being successors-in-interest of Muhammad Afsar,
who too remained alive till 04th March, 1978 but never challenged
the gift. The petitioners are thus precluded to dispute the gift
mutation on the ground of estoppel. Reference to this effect can be
made to GHULAM ABBAS and others versus MOHAMMAD SHAFI through
LRs and others (2016 SCMR 1403), MUHAMMAD RUSTAM and another
versus Mst. MAKHAN JAN and others (2013 SCMR 299) and JAMILA
KHATOON and others versus AISH MUHAMMAD and others (2011 SCMR
222).
15. Now attending the last point for determination, which relates
to limitation, it is observed that a suit for declaration of any right as
to any property, the person claiming such right has to institute the
suit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and the
limitation of such suit is to be regulated and governed by Article 120
of the Limitation Act, 1908. Suit was instituted by the petitioners on
30th July, 2003 challenging the validity of gift mutation on the
ground of fraud asserting that the cause of action accrued to them six
months before institution of the suit on claim of the respondents’ that
they are exclusive owners of the “suit land”.
16. It is evident from the record that after the gift mutation entries
were incorporated in the light thereof in the revenue record. It also
evinces that after the incorporation of “suit land” in his name in
ivil Revision No.934-D of 2012
-8-
furtherance of gift mutation the donee transferred portion of the “suit
land” in favour of the “respondents” through mutation No.2786
dated 30th May, 1981 (Exhibit-P23). Not only this but through
mutation No.2714 (Exhibit-D18) 03 Kanal 18 Marla of land was
mutated in favour of the petitioners as well through gift.
17.
Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 ordains that any
person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any
property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or
interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court
may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled.
Section 42 of the Act ibid is reproduced below for the purpose of
convenience :-
“42. Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or
right.— (1) Any person entitled to any character, or any right
to any property, may institute a suit against any person
denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or
right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a
declaration that he is so entitled and the plaintiff need not in
such suit ask for any further relief:
Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where
the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere
declaration of title, omits to do so.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, a suit filed under sub-section (1) shall
be decided by the Court within six months and the appellate
court shall decide the appeal not later than ninety days, as the
case may be.”
From the bare perusal of the above referred provision of law it
becomes crystal clear that the right to sue accrues to a person against
the other for declaration of his right, as to any property, when the
latter denies or is interested to deny his such right.
18. In the case of SALAMAT ALI and others versus MUHAMMAD DIN
and others (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 353) Supreme Court of Pakistan
outlined the scope of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 in
the following words :-
“25. A suit for declaration of any right as to any property
is filed under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877
("Specific Relief Act"). Therefore, to ascertain when the
right to sue accrues to a legal heir to seek a declaration of his
ownership right over the property inherited by him and of
his such right not to be affected by the further transfer of
such property, we need to consider section 42 of the Specific
Civil Revision No.934-D of 2012
-9-
Relief Act, which reads:--
42. Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or
right-- Any person entitled to any legal character, or to
any right as to any property, may institute a suit against
any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to
such character or right, and the Court may in its
discretion make therein a declaration that he is so
entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for
any further relief:
Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration
where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than
a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
(Emphasis added)
It becomes evident by reading the above provisions that the
right to sue accrues to a person against the other for
declaration of his right, as to any property, when the latter
denies or is interested to deny his such right. It thus
postulates two actions that cause the accrual of right to sue,
to an aggrieved person: (i) actual denial of his right or (ii)
apprehended or threatened denial of his right.
26.
What "actions" can be termed as an "actual denial of
right", and what a mere "apprehended or threatened denial of
right", in the context of adverse entries recorded in the
revenue record, is a question that requires consideration.
Admittedly, entries in the revenue record do not create or
extinguish proprietary rights. Such an entry may at most be
termed as a mere "apprehended or threatened denial" of
right, and not an "actual denial" of right. Accordingly, every
new adverse entry in the revenue record relating to
proprietary rights of a person in possession (actual or
constructive) of the land regarding which the wrong entry is
made, gives to such person, a fresh cause of action to
institute the suit for declaration. The situation is, however,
different in a case where the person in possession (actual or
constructive) of the land regarding which the wrong entry is
made, is ousted from such possession, besides a wrong entry
in the revenue record. In such a case, the act of ousting him
from the actual or constructive possession of the land,
constitutes an "actual denial" of his rights, and does not
remain a mere "apprehended or threatened denial".
Therefore, in such a case, if the person injuriously affected
by such an act of "actual denial" of his rights does not
challenge the same within the prescribed limitation period,
despite having knowledge thereof, then his right to do so
becomes barred by law of limitation.
27.
In an inheritance case, like the present one, a wrong
mutation in the revenue record, as to inheritance rights does
not affect the proprietary rights of a legal heir in the
property, as the devolution of the ownership of the property
on legal heirs takes place under the Islamic law, through
inheritance immediately, without any formality including
sanction of inheritance mutation. Therefore, a wrong
mutation is a mere "apprehended or threatened denial" of
right, not necessitating for the person aggrieved thereby to
institute the suit. The position is, however, different when
the co-sharer in possession of the joint property, on the basis
of a wrong inheritance mutation, sells the joint property, or
any part thereof exceeding his share, claiming him to be the
exclusive owner thereof and transfers possession of the sold
land to a third person, the purchaser. In such a circumstance,
the co-sharer by his said act "actually denies" the rights of
the other co-sharer, who is only in constructive possession of
the same, and ousts him from such constructive possession
also by transferring the possession of the sold land to a third
Civil Revision No.934-D of 2012
-10-
person, the purchaser. In such circumstances, the right to sue
accrues to the aggrieved co-sharer from the date of such sale,
and transfer of actual possession of the sold land to the third
person, the purchaser.”
Reliance in this respect can also be placed on Mst. RABIA GULA and
others versus MUHAMMAD JANAN and others (2022 SCMR 1009).
19. After having an overview of the principles laid down in the
cases cited above, it can safely be held that limitation would start
running from the date of knowledge of the donor and not the
petitioners. Even otherwise the petitioners nowhere in their plaint
asserted that their father or the grandfather (donor), who both
remained alive for considerable time after the sanctioning of gift
mutation, were not aware of the same and thus could not challenge it
during their lifetime. Contrarily sufficient material is available on the
record to show that the petitioners were well in knowledge of the gift
mutation right from its inception but they brought their suit on 30th
July, 2003, which is clearly barred by time.
20.
So far judgment in the case of Faqir Ali’s heavily relied by
learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, it is noticed that in
the said case by way of gift mutation female members of the family
were deprived from their share in inheritance of their predecessor.
They instituted a suit for declaration alleging fraud and were
ultimately succeeded to establish that the gift mutations were the
product of fraud. In this background, Supreme Court of Pakistan
observed that fraud vitiates even the most solemn transactions and
any transaction that is based upon fraud is void and notwithstanding
the bar of limitation. Courts would not act as helpless by stands and
allow a fraud to perpetuate. Facts in the case of Noor Din
(Deceased) supra were also almost the same, as such principles laid
down therein are not applicable to the case at hand. In the case of
Saadat Khan’s above, the matter was relatable to estate of Isa Khan,
who died and after his death inheritance mutation was sanctioned
only in favour of his son Abdul Rehman on 23rd March, 1995, which
was later on challenged in the year 2004 by Mst. Mehro and Mst.
Afsro claiming themselves daughters of said Isa Khan and in this
background, Supreme Court of Pakistan again observed that a suit
Revision No.934-D of 2012
-11-
instituted by a female legal heir for declaration of her ownership
rights as to the property left by her deceased father in his inheritance,
against her brother who denies her rights is thus governed by the
provisions of Article 120. To decide whether such a suit is barred by
limitation, the six-year period of limitation provided by Article 120
is to be counted from the time when the right to sue for declaration
accrues as provided therein. The question, when the right to sue for
declaration has accrued in a case, depends upon the facts and
circumstances of that case, as it accrues when the defendant denies
(actually) or is interested to deny (threatens) the rights of the plaintiff
as per Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The principles
laid down in the said judgment are same as were previously held in
the case of Faqir Ali’s supra.
21. From the facts and circumstances of the present case it is since
established on the record that neither donor nor father of the
petitioners challenged the gift mutation in their lifetime and the
petitioners even did not assert in their plaint either of them were not
aware about the gift mutation, so their suit becomes badly barred by
time. Even otherwise in view of availability of material qua the fact
that donee gifted some portion of land to the petitioners and they
accepted the same, there remains no room to infer that they were not
having knowledge of the gift. Suit was thus rightly adjudged as
barred by time by the appellate court.
22. Though there is divergence of views in the courts below and
conclusion are contrary to each other but this Court, while exercising
revisional jurisdiction is supposed to make comparative analysis of
both the judgments in order to examine their validity on the
touchstones of Section 115 of “CPC”. It is cardinal principle of law
that in the matter of giving preference to the judgments of lower
courts while analyzing the same in exercise of revisional jurisdiction,
the preference and regard is always given to the findings of the
appellate court, unless those are suffering with any legal infirmity or
material irregularity. Reference in this respect, if needed can safely
be made to the case of MUHAMMAD NAWAZ through L.Rs versus Haji
Civil Revision No.934-D of 2012
-12-
MUHAMMAD BARAN KHAN through L.Rs. and others (2013 SCMR 1300).
Relevant extract from the same is reproduced herein below:-
“12………We have also taken into consideration the judgment
of the Appellate Court which is based on proper appraisal of
evidence on record and the findings of the Appellate Court are
to be preferred as it has been held by this Court in the cases of
Madan Gopal and others vs Maran Bepari and others (PLD
1969 SC 617) that if the findings of fact reached by the first
appellate Court is at variance with that of the trial Court, the
former will ordinarily prevail, although it would not possess
the same value or sanctity as a concurrent finding.” This view
also finds support from the cases of Muhammad Shafi and
others vs. Sultan Mahmood and others (2010 SCMR
827)……..”
The above view also finds support from the cases of AMJAD IKRAM
versus Mst. ASIYA KAUSAR and 2 others (2015 SCMR 1) and MUHAMMAD
HAFEEZ and another versus DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI EAST and another
(2008 SCMR 398).
23. After having a comparative analysis of both the judgments, I
am of the firm view that the learned District Judge, Rawalpindi has
rightly interfered with the judgment passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Rawalpindi. The petitioners have failed to point out any
illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgment,
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction. The instant petition thus fails and is dismissed with no
order as to costs.
(MIRZA VIQAS RAUF)
JUDGE
Dictated
11.01.2024
Signed
_________
Announced in open Court on 18.01.2024.
JUDGE
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
JUDGE
Comments
Post a Comment