Mutation and documents cancelled as plaintiff claim by High Court.Mutation and documents cancelled as plaintiff claim by High Court.
 |
| Mutation and documents cancelled as plaintiff claim by High Court. |
**دعویٰ:**
مسز لال خاتون نے دعویٰ دائر کیا کہ وہ اپنے والد کی وراثت سے حاصل شدہ اراضی کی مالک ہیں، اور ان کی زمین پر موجودہ اپیلنٹس (ہجرت محمد حسین اور دیگر) نے جعلسازی کے ذریعے ان کی ملکیت کو تبدیل کر دیا ہے۔ ان کا کہنا تھا کہ اپیلنٹس نے جعلی منتقلی کے ذریعے ان کی ملکیت ہتھیائی ہے اور اس دعویٰ کو چیلنج کرنے کے لئے انہوں نے مقدمہ دائر کیا۔
**فیصلہ:**
1. **ابتدائی عدالت کا فیصلہ (22 جون 2004):**
- عدالت نے مسز لال خاتون کے حق میں فیصلہ سنایا اور متنازعہ منتقلی (mutations) کو جعلی قرار دے کر ان کی ملکیت کو بحال کیا۔
2. **اپیل عدالت کا فیصلہ (8 فروری 2005):**
- اپیل عدالت نے ابتدائی عدالت کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا، جس میں متنازعہ منتقلیوں کو غیر قانونی اور جعلسازی قرار دیا گیا۔
3. **ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ (17 جون 2014):**
- لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے اپیلنٹس کی درخواست کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے ابتدائی اور اپیل عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کی توثیق کی۔ ہائی کورٹ نے کہا کہ اپیلنٹس نے جعلسازی کے ثبوت فراہم نہیں کیے اور فیصلے میں کوئی قانونی غلطی نہیں تھی۔
اس طرح، عدالت نے مسز لال خاتون کے حق میں فیصلہ دیتے ہوئے ان کی ملکیت بحال کر دی اور اپیلنٹس کے دعوے کو مسترد کر دیا۔
**عدالتی ریمارکس**:
یہ کیس لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے جج سادات علی خان نے سنا، جنہوں نے اپنے ریمارکس میں کیس کی تفصیلات اور فیصلہ دینے کی بنیاد کو واضح کیا۔
1. **پیش کردہ ثبوت:** جج نے کہا کہ مدعا علیہ نے خود کو صحیح ثابت کرنے کے لئے ضروری ثبوت فراہم نہیں کیے۔ خاص طور پر، انہوں نے کہا کہ مدعا علیہان (پٹیشنرز) نے یہ ثابت کرنے میں ناکامی کا مظاہرہ کیا کہ متنازعہ انتقالات قانونی طور پر درست ہیں۔
2. **گواہوں کی گواہی:** جج نے گواہوں کے بیانات کا جائزہ لیا اور پایا کہ وہ متنازعہ دستاویزات کی تصدیق کرنے میں ناکام رہے۔ خاص طور پر، انہوں نے کہا کہ گواہوں نے اصل دستخط اور دیگر ثبوتوں کی تصدیق نہیں کی۔
3. **قانونی اصول:** جج نے کہا کہ قانونی اصول کے تحت، کسی بھی متنازعہ تبدیلی کے حق میں ثبوت فراہم کرنا مدعا علیہ کی ذمہ داری ہوتی ہے۔ جب مدعا علیہان نے اس ذمہ داری کو پورا نہیں کیا، تو عدالت نے ان کے حق میں فیصلہ دینے سے انکار کر دیا۔
4. **فیصلے کی توثیق:** جج نے واضح کیا کہ نیچے کی عدالتوں نے شواہد کا مناسب جائزہ لے کر فیصلہ کیا تھا اور ان کی طرف سے فیصلے میں کوئی قانونی غلطی نہیں تھی۔ اپیل عدالت نے اس فیصلے کی توثیق کی، اور ہائی کورٹ نے بھی اس پر مداخلت کرنے کی کوئی وجہ نہیں سمجھی۔
یہ ریمارکس کیس کے حقائق اور قانون کے اصولوں کی بنیاد پر دیے گئے، جو مدعا علیہان کے فیصلے کے خلاف استدعا کو مسترد کرنے کے لئے کافی تھے۔
یہ کیس لاہور ہائی کورٹ، بہاولپور بینچ میں دائر کیا گیا تھا اور اس میں ہجرت محمد حسین وغیرہ بمقابلہ مسز لال خاتون کے درمیان تنازعے کی سماعت کی گئی۔ یہ فیصلہ 17 جون 2014 کو سنایا گیا۔
**کیس کی تفصیلات:**
- **فریقین:**
- **اپیلنٹ:** ہجرت محمد حسین اور دیگر
- **جواب دہندہ:** مسز لال خاتون (جو بعد میں وفات پا گئی)
- **کیس کی نوعیت:**
- اس کیس میں مسز لال خاتون نے اپنی اراضی کے مالکانہ حقوق کے حوالے سے دعویٰ دائر کیا تھا۔ اس کا کہنا تھا کہ اس کی اراضی پر موجودہ اپیلنٹس نے جعلسازی کے ذریعے اس کی ملکیت کو تبدیل کر دیا ہے۔
- **پیشرفت:**
- ابتدائی عدالت نے مسز لال خاتون کے حق میں فیصلہ سنایا، جسے اپیل کے بعد بھی برقرار رکھا گیا۔
- **مدعا:**
- اپیلنٹس نے الزام لگایا کہ نیچے کی عدالتوں نے شواہد کا صحیح طریقے سے مطالعہ نہیں کیا اور فیصلے میں قانونی خامیاں ہیں۔
- دوسری طرف، جواب دہندہ کا موقف تھا کہ عدالتوں نے صحیح فیصلہ کیا ہے کیونکہ اس کے پاس مضبوط ثبوت موجود تھے۔
**فیصلہ:**
- عدالت نے اپیلنٹس کی درخواست کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے ابتدائی اور اپیل عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کو برقرار رکھا۔ عدالت نے کہا کہ اپیلنٹس نے جعلسازی کے ثبوت فراہم نہیں کیے اور فیصلہ شواہد کی درست تشریح پر مبنی تھا۔
**قانونی نکتہ:**
- کیس کا بنیادی نکتہ یہ تھا کہ ثبوت کی روشنی میں حقائق کا صحیح تجزیہ ہونا ضروری ہے اور کوئی بھی جعلسازی یا دھوکہ دہی ثابت کرنا فریقین کی ذمہ داری ہے۔
یہ فیصلہ اس بات کی تصدیق کرتا ہے کہ عدالتیں حقیقت اور ثبوت کی بنیاد پر فیصلے کرتی ہیں اور جب تک کسی فیصلے میں کوئی قانونی غلطی نہ ہو، اس میں مداخلت کی گنجائش کم ہوتی ہے۔
LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH,
BAHAWALPUR.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Haji Muhammad Hussain etc. Vs
Mst. Lal Khatoon.
CR. No.259-D-2005/BWP
JUDGMENT
Date of
hearing:
17.06.2014
Appellant by:
Gulzar Ahmad Khan Durrani, Advocate
Respondent by: Ch. Muhammad Shafi Meo, Advocate
SADAQAT ALI KHAN, J. The instant Civil
Revision No.259-D-2005/BWP has been filed by the
present petitioners against judgment and decree dated
08.02.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Khanpur
according to which appeal of the present petitioners was
dismissed, filed against judgment and decree dated
22.06.2004 passed by Civil Judge Khanpur according to
which suit for declaration filed by Mst. Lal Khatoon
respondent/plaintiff (since died) was decreed against
present petitioners No.1 to 5.
2.
Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Mst. Lal
Khatoon respondent (since died) on 12.03.1997 filed a suit
for declaration against present petitioners No.1 to
5/defendants and made party to present petitioners No.6 to
9 as proforma defendants stating therein that she is owner
in possession of land mentioned in Khata No.5 and Khata
No.6 to the extent of her share(7/360 and 11 1/8
respectively) measuring 11 Kanals 4 Marlas situated in
Mauza Muhammad Khan and also owner in possession of
land mentioned in Khata No.15 and Khata No.36 to the
extent of her share (7/80/15 and 1/36/4845) measuring 6
Kanals 16 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of
Tatar Chachar Tehsil Khanpur and above stated Khata Nos.
have been converted as Khata No.134/6 of Mauza Khan
Muhammad according to Register Haqdaran-e-Zameen for
the year 1995-96 and Khata No.43 of Mauza Tatar Chachar
CR. No.259-D-2005/BWP
2
according to the Register Haqdaran-e-Zameen for the year
1992-93. Plaintiff further stated that defendants No.1 to
5/present petitioners No.1 to 5 are being her real brothers
have been cultivating the above stated suit land and giving
share of produce to the plaintiff to the extent of her share.
For the last one year they stopped giving share of produce
to the plaintiff and now flatly refused to do so asserting
therein that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit land
who had alienated the same to Mst. Bharwana (real mother
of the plaintiff and the defendants). She further stated that
she then got inspected the revenue record where it was
revealed that defendants No.1 to 5/present petitioners No.1
to 5 firstly got transferred the suit property through
mutations No.101 and 1156 dated 25.11.1979 in favour of
Mst. Bharwana real mother of the parties showing the
plaintiff as donor and thereafter same property was got
transferred by the present petitioners No.1 to 5/defendants
No.1 to 5 in their favour from Mst. Bharwana through
mutations No.1167 and 109 dated 25.06.1980 fraudulently
by depriving the plaintiff from her legal share. She stated
further that she never alienated the suit property in favour
of Mst. Bharwana through the mutations stated above. She
herself is a poor lady having children and she neither
appeared before any revenue officer for the attestation of
the above stated disputed mutations nor made any statement
thereof in this regard. She further stated that she did not
affix any thumb impression on disputed mutations and
disputed mutations are fake, forged and result of forgery
and are ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff. She
obtained suit land from inheritance left by her father Wahid
Bakhsh after his death. She further stated that mutations
No.1167 and 109 dated 25.06.1980 are also result of fraud
and forgery and are ineffective against the rights of the
plaintiff and same are liable to be set aside. On the other
hand present petitioners being defendants put their
appearance before the learned trial court and submitted
CR. No.259-D-2005/BWP
3
their written statement jointly and denied the assertions
made by the plaintiff Lal Khatoon/respondent (since died)
in this petition.
3.
Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties
following issues were framed by the trial court:-
ISSUES
1.
Whether plaintiff is exclusive owner in
possession of suit property fully detailed in
head-note of plaint and impugned mutations
No.101 and 1156 dated 25.11.1979, tamleek
mutations No.1167 & 109 both dated
25.06.1980 are against law, facts, result of
fraud as such ineffective, inoperative against
rights of plaintiff and liable for cancellation?
OPP
2.
Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of
declaration as prayed for? OPP
3.
Whether plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD
4.
Whether plaintiff is estopped by her act and
conduct to file the suit? OPD
5.
Whether the suit is incompetent in this present
form? OPD
6.
Whether the suit is time barred? OPD
7.
Whether suit has been based upon wrong facts
and its effects? OPD
8.
Whether suit is false as such liable to be
dismissed with special costs? OPD
9.
Relief.
4.
In support of her claim plaintiff herself appeared as
PW1 and produced attested copy of mutation No.101
Exh.P1, attested copy of mutation No.109 Exh.P2, attested
copy of mutation No.1156 Exh.P3, attested copy of
mutation No.1167 Exh.P4 and copy of the Register
Haqdaran-e-Zameen for the year 1995-96 Exh.P5 and
closed her evidence. On the other hand Muhammad
Hussain petitioner No.1 (one of the defendants) appeared as
DW1, Mst. Sharif Khatoon petitioner No.7 as DW2 and
CR. No.259-D-2005/BWP
4
Muhammad Asim as DW3 and closed the evidence.
Learned trial court after conclusion of the trial and after
hearing the arguments from both sides decreed the suit of
Mst. Lal Khatoon plaintiff/respondent (since died) to the
extent of her share vide judgment and decree dated
22.06.2004. Present petitioners feeling aggrieved preferred
an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge,
Khanpur but the same was dismissed on 08.02.2005.
Hence, this Civil Revision before this court.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
judgments and decrees of the courts below are against law
and facts on the file and are liable to be set aside. It is
submitted that findings of the courts below are result of
misreading and non reading of evidence and both the courts
below have committed illegality by decreeing the suit of
respondent Mst. Lal Khatoon (since died) and submitted
that plaintiff has failed to prove her case and her suit is
liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on cases titled as
“Taj Muhammad Khan through L.Rs. and another av. Mst.
Munawar Jan and 2 others” (2009 SCMR 598), “Aish
Muhammad alias Ashiq Muhammad Khan v. Mst. Jamila
Khatoon and others” (PLD 2006 Lahore 87), “Ghulam
Ghous v. Muhammad Yasin and another” (2009 SCMR 70)
and “Haji Abdul Ghani and another v. Muhammad
Arjumand Malik” (1988 CLC 606).
6.
On the other hand learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that plaintiff has proved her case
with solid evidence and her suit was rightly decreed by the
learned trial court which decree was rightly upheld by the
appellate court by dismissing appeal of the present
petitioners and the instant Civil Revision is also liable to be
dismissed.
7.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
8.
Mst. Lal Khatoon plaintiff/respondent (since died)
was the real sister of present petitioners and she had
CR. No.259-D-2005/BWP
5
obtained suit property from the inheritance of her real
father Wahid Bakhsh after his death. Plaintiff has
challenged mutations No.101 Exh.P1 and 1156 Exh.P3
dated 25.11.1979 according to which Mst. Lal Khatoon
plaintiff alongwith proforma defendants No.6 to 9
(petitioners No.6 to 9) had gifted their property in favour of
Mst. Bharwana their real mother (since died) and mutations
No.1167 Exh.P4 and 109 Exh.P2 dated 25.06.1980
according to which same property was gifted by Mst.
Bharwana to present petitioners No.1 to 5 (real brothers of
plaintiff Mst. Lal Khatoon). In view of the above it is
concluded that present petitioners No.1 to 5 are the
beneficiaries of the alleged transaction stated above. Mst.
Lal Khatoon specifically stated in her statement before the
learned trial court as under:-
9.
In view of the above Mst. Lal Khatoon plaintiff has
denied the execution of mutations No.101 Exh.P1 and 1156
Exh.P3. It is settled law that it is the duty and obligation of
the beneficiary to prove the mutations by producing
evidence in accordance with accepted principles and in
terms of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 otherwise it does
not create any title. I have perused above stated all four
mutations which were registered on the statement of DW1
Haji Muhammad Hussain petitioner No.1 who is also
witness of mutation No.101 Exh.P1 and mutation No.1156
Exh.P3 according to which plaintiff Mst. Lal Khatoon was
deprived of her share (disputed property). The other
witness of the mutation was Haji Elahi Bakhsh Lambardar
who did not appear due to his death rather his son
Muhammad Asim was produced by the present petitioners
CR. No.259-D-2005/BWP
6
/defendants as DW3 who stated in cross examination that
the signatures which were shown to him were not original
but is a photocopy. Further he stated in examination-inchief that both the parties are his close relatives and Mst.
Sharifan Khatoon DW2 stated in cross examination that
Haji Elahi Bakhsh Lambardar (witness) was her Mamun.
Present petitioners being defendants did not produce
revenue officer to prove the mutations stated above and
also did not produce original mutations stated above in their
defence during the trial and did not confront the thumb
impressions of Mst. Lal Khatoon allegedly present on
mutations No.101 Exh.P1 and 1156 Exh.P3 specifically
denied by her in his plaint as well as in her statement before
the learned trial court and further did not make any request
to the learned trial court for sending such thumb
impressions to finger print expert for comparison. It is
admitted principle of law that where the Parda Nasheen
Lady was a party to a transaction affecting her right and
interest in an immovable property, it was always on the
person claiming such right and interest to prove the same
through affirmative evidence. I have also perused the
written statement filed by the present petitioners and
statements of Haji Muhammad Hussain DW1(petitioner
No.1) and Mst. Sharif Khatoon DW2(petitioner No.7)
wherein they have not stated that suit property was gifted
by Mst. Lal Khatoon plaintiff to Mst. Bharwana or further
same property was gifted by Mst. Bharwana to present
petitioners No.1 to 5 through disputed mutations No.109
Exh.P2 and 1167 Exh.p4 and it is my firm view that factum
of the gift has not been proved by the present petitioners
who are beneficiaries of both the transactions and it was
their duty to prove the factum of the disputed gift through
solid evidence being beneficiaries. Haji Muhammad
Hussain DW1 is a witness of disputed mutation No.101
Exh.P2 and 1156 Exh.P3 who has not uttered a single word
in his statement that suit property was gifted by the plaintiff
CR. No.259-D-2005/BWP
7
(Donor) to Mst. Bharwana by making offer and acceptance
by Mst. Bharwana (Donee) and delivery of the possession
of the suit property thereof. Although petitioners No.6 to 9
supported the claim of present petitioners No.1 to 5 by
submitting joint written statement and Mst. Sharifan
Khatoon petitioner No.7 by appearing as DW2 but such
concession is not binding upon the plaintiff who has
contested the matter. In this respect reliance is placed on
case titled “Allah Rakha through legal heirs v. Nasir Khan
& 4 others” (2007 CLC 154).
10. Plaintiff Mst. Lal Khatoon specifically stated in her
plaint as well as in her statement while appearing as PW1
that present petitioners No.1 to 5/defendants No.1 to 5
being real brothers of the plaintiff have been cultivating the
suit land and giving share of produce to the plaintiff and for
the last one year from filing of the suit i.e. 12.03.1997 they
stopped giving share of produce to the plaintiff and asserted
that plaintiff is not owner of the suit property and same was
alienated by her to Mst. Bharwana. Thereafter plaintiff got
inspected the revenue record and found disputed mutations
stated above and filed immediately instant suit for
declaration for setting aside the above stated mutations. It
is concluded that plaintiff/respondent (since died) on
having the knowledge of the above stated mutations,
immediately filed the suit for declaration within time and
learned trial court after recording the evidence rightly
decreed the suit which was maintained by the appellate
court as the plaintiff is an illiterate and Parda Nasheen lady.
Reliance is placed on case titled “Allah Dittah v. Aimna
Bibi” (2011 SCMR 1483) in which august Supreme Court
of Pakistan has observed at page 1484 as under:-
3.
We have taken into consideration
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and perused the available record.
From perusal of record, it appears that on the
basis of oral agreement, mutation was effected.
The respondent on having the knowledge of the
same immediately filed suit for declaration and
CR. No.259-D-2005/BWP
8
joint possession. The trial Court, after recording
the evidence decreed the suit, which was
maintained by the Appellate Court as well as by
the Revisional Court, as the respondent is an
illiterate and “Parda Nashin” lady.
4.
Having considered the matter from all
angles in the light of material on file, we find no
substance in the submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner. No misreading and non-reading of
the evidence on record nor any infirmity legal or
factual, has been pointed out in the impugned
judgment. We are of the considered opinion that
no different view can be taken in this matter with
the concurrent findings of fact. The petitioner
filed suit for declaration immediately on having
knowledge of alleged mutation gift, and denied
that she had gifted the property in question to the
petitioner. The presumption under Article 100 of
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 in respect of a
document thirty years old is in respect of the
signature and every other part of the document
which supports to be in the handwriting of any
particular person which is not the case here. The
mutation entry in the record is not in handwriting
of the respondent and further it is not compulsory
with the Court to presume the genuineness of the
documents and may require the party producing
the document to prove its execution by producing
some witnesses.”
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point
out any illegality in the impugned judgments and decrees of
the courts below and judgments and decrees of the courts
below are not result of misreading and non reading of the
evidence. Concurrent findings of the courts below are
based on proper appreciation of evidence. It is settled law
that this court cannot re-appraise and re-evaluate the merits
of the evidence of the parties in the absence of any
illegality and non reading/misreading of evidence in its
revisional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on case titled
“Hazara and others v. Muhammad Yar and others” (2011
SCMR 758) in which august Supreme Court of Pakistan
has observed at page 762 as under:-
“The learned High Court, in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction, was not called upon to reappraise and re-evaluate the merits of evidence of
the parties in the absence of any illegality or non
reading/misreading of evidence. It traveled
beyond its jurisdiction in re-examination the
CR. No.259-D-2005/BWP
9
entire evidence, searching support, for another
possible conclusion. This approach has not been
approved by this Court and warrant interference.
Reference can he had to “Abdul Hakeem v.
Habibullah and 11 others” (1997 SCMR 1139).
For the above discussion, we are of the view that
interference by the learned High Court in exercise
of its revisional jurisdiction was not called for.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed; impugned
Judgment is set aside and that of the First
Appellate Court and trial Court are restored.
There shall be no order as to costs”
12.
Same view has been reiterated by the August
Supreme of Pakistan in case titled “Administrator, Thal
Development through EACO Bhakkar and others v. Ali
Muhammad” (2012 SCMR 730) in which August Supreme
Court of Pakistan has observed at page 734 as under:-
“Concurrent findings of the trial court and
appellate Court in favour of appellants were
based on proper appreciation of evidence
therefore, the same were not open to interference
by the revisional Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under section 115 CPC, which is
primarily meant for correction of jurisdictional
defect/error and material
illegalities/irregularities, resulting in miscarriage
of justice to a party.”
13. The case law referred by learned counsel for the
petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the instant case
because in the case law referred by learned counsel for the
petitioners donor had not challenged the gift mutation
whereas in the instant case Mst. Lal Khatoon being donor
herself has challenged the gift mutations.
14. For the foregoing reasons the instant Civil Revision
has no merits and the same is dismissed.
(Sadaqat Ali Khan)
Judge
Comments
Post a Comment