Mutation challenged on base of fraud .
 |
| Mutation challenged on base of fraud . |
سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے میں درج ریمارکس درج ذیل اہم نکات پر مبنی تھے:
1. **دھوکہ دہی کا الزام**: عدالت نے یہ ریمارکس دیے کہ اپیل کنندگان دھوکہ دہی اور جعلسازی کے الزامات کو ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہے۔ ان کی جانب سے فراہم کردہ شواہد غیر تسلی بخش تھے اور دھوکہ دہی کے عناصر کو درست طریقے سے بیان نہیں کیا گیا۔
2. **مدتِ محاکمہ**: عدالت نے نوٹ کیا کہ مقدمہ مدتِ محاکمہ سے باہر تھا، کیونکہ میوٹیشن 29 دسمبر 1981 کو ریکارڈ کی گئی تھی اور مقدمہ 3 مئی 1997 کو دائر کیا گیا تھا۔ عدالت نے یہ بھی کہا کہ مقدمے کا دیر سے دائر ہونا ایک اہم قانونی مسئلہ تھا۔
3. **قانونی حیثیت**: عدالت نے اس بات کا اعادہ کیا کہ میوٹیشن کی قانونی حیثیت کو برقرار رکھا گیا ہے اور نچلی عدالتوں نے درست طور پر میوٹیشن کو قانونی طور پر درست قرار دیا تھا۔
4. **ہائی کورٹ کی جانچ**: عدالت نے ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کو درست قرار دیا اور کہا کہ ہائی کورٹ نے تمام شواہد اور نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے کو مناسب طور پر جانچا تھا۔
5. **قانونی اصول**: عدالت نے یہ بھی واضح کیا کہ اگر نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے میں کوئی قانونی نقص، غلطی یا شواہد کی غلط تشریح ہو، تو ہائی کورٹ کو اس بات کا جائزہ لینے کا حق ہے۔
یہ ریمارکس مقدمے کی قانونی حیثیت، شواہد کی جانچ، اور وقت کی پابندی کی اہمیت کو مدنظر رکھتے ہوئے دیے گئے تھے۔
**دعوی:**
مستفیضہ مریم بیگم (مرحومہ) اور دیگر نے ایک دعویٰ دائر کیا کہ وہ 3/8 حصے (10 کنال 13 مرلہ) کے شریک مالک ہیں جو 28 کنال 8 مرلہ زرعی جائیداد پر مشتمل ہے۔ انہوں نے دعویٰ کیا کہ میوٹیشن نمبر 260 مورخہ 29.12.1981، جو کہ جائیداد کی منتقلی کی دستاویز ہے، غیر قانونی، دھوکہ دہی پر مبنی اور ان کے حقوق کے خلاف ہے۔ ان کا کہنا تھا کہ اس میوٹیشن کے عمل میں فراڈ اور جعلسازی کی گئی ہے اور یہ کہ مذکورہ منتقلی کے وقت مِسٹر گھاؤسان نے کبھی بھی سامنے آ کر اس کو تسلیم نہیں کیا۔
**جواب:**
جواب دہندگان نے دعویٰ کیا کہ میوٹیشن قانونی طریقہ کار کے مطابق کی گئی تھی اور مِسٹر گھاؤسان نے اس پر دستخط کیے تھے۔ انہوں نے مختلف گواہان کو پیش کیا جنہوں نے بیان دیا کہ میوٹیشن کے عمل میں تمام قانونی تقاضے پورے کیے گئے۔ جواب دہندگان نے یہ بھی کہا کہ دعویٰ دیر سے دائر کیا گیا ہے اور اس پر کوئی معقول ثبوت فراہم نہیں کیا گیا کہ میوٹیشن جعلی یا دھوکہ دہی پر مبنی تھی۔
**فیصلہ:**
نچلی عدالتوں نے دعویٰ مسترد کر دیا، یہ کہتے ہوئے کہ میوٹیشن کے عمل کو قانونی قرار دیا۔ ہائی کورٹ نے اس فیصلے کو برقرار رکھتے ہوئے یہ بھی کہا کہ دعویٰ بارِ وقت تھا کیونکہ میوٹیشن 29 دسمبر 1981 کو ہوئی تھی اور مقدمہ 3 مئی 1997 کو دائر کیا گیا تھا، یعنی تقریباً 15 سال بعد۔ سپریم کورٹ نے ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کی توثیق کی اور اپیل کو مسترد کر دیا، اس بات پر زور دیتے ہوئے کہ اپیل کنندگان نے دھوکہ دہی کا کوئی مضبوط ثبوت فراہم نہیں کیا اور مقدمہ وقت کی پابندی سے باہر تھا۔
پاکستان کی سپریم کورٹ نے سول اپیل نمبر 1300/2019 میں ایک کیس کا جائزہ لیا، جس میں زراعتی جائیداد کے تنازع پر فیصلہ کیا گیا۔ اپیل کنندگان نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کو چیلنج کیا، جس نے نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کو الٹ دیا تھا جو ان کے حق میں تھے۔
اپیل کنندگان نے دعویٰ کیا کہ جائیداد کی منتقلی جعلی تھی اور قانونی طریقہ کار کے مطابق نہیں تھی۔ ان کا کہنا تھا کہ منتقلی ایک جھوٹے تحفے پر مبنی تھی، جو مِسٹر گھاؤسان نے دی تھی۔ ہائی کورٹ نے اس بات کو تسلیم کیا کہ مقدمہ وقت کی پابندی سے باہر تھا، کیونکہ یہ منتقلی ریکارڈ کیے جانے کے بعد کافی دیر سے دائر کیا گیا تھا، اور اپیل کنندگان نے دھوکہ دہی کا کوئی معقول ثبوت فراہم نہیں کیا۔
سپریم کورٹ نے ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا، اس بات پر زور دیتے ہوئے کہ اپیل کنندگان دھوکہ دہی کو ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہے اور مقدمہ وقت سے باہر تھا۔ اپیل کو مسترد کر دیا گیا، اور ریوینیو ریکارڈ میں درج منتقلی کی قانونی حیثیت کو تسلیم کر لیا گیا۔
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1300 of 2019
(Against Judgment dated 12.03.2019
passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan
Bench in Civil Revision No.96-D/2003)
Mst. Faheeman Begum (deceased) through
L.Rs and others
…Appellants
Versus
Islam-ud-Din (deceased) through L.Rs
and others
…Respondents
For the Appellants
: Mr. Anwar Mubeen Ansari, ASC
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR
For the Respondents
: Nemo
Date of Hearing
: 03.05.2023
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J:- This Civil Appeal is filed to challenge
the Judgment dated 12.03.2019 passed by the learned Lahore High
Court, Multan Bench in Civil Revision No.96-D/2003 whereby the
impugned judgments of the courts below were set aside and the suit of
the instant appellants was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present appellants
filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the
respondents, asserting that they were co-owners of a 3/8th share, that
is, 10 kanal 13 marlas (“suit property”) in undivided agricultural
property measuring 28 kanals and 8 marlas, bearing Khewat no. 82/79,
Khatooni No. 296 to 299, situated in Mouza Chat Wahan, Tehsil Mailsi,
District Vehari, vide fard jamabandi for the year 1995-96, and prayed
that the Mutation No.260 dated 29.12.1981 (“Mutation”) be set aside as
being against the law, collusive and ineffective qua their rights.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the respondents have
failed to discharge the burden of proof with respect to offer and
acceptance, and transfer of possession, and that the said Mutation was
effected through fraud and forgery, and was attested in connivance with
the Revenue Department. It was further argued that Mst. Ghausan had
C.A. No.1300/2019 2
never appeared before the revenue officer and the Mutation did not bear
the thumb impression of Mst. Ghausan, or her CNIC number, nor were
the CNIC numbers of those persons who allegedly identified Mst.
Ghausan disclosed therein. It was alleged that the respondent no.1 is
the brother of the present appellants and was entrusted with the suit
property as a tenant after the death of Mst. Ghausan; during this time
the respondent no.1 had regularly been paying the appellants a share of
the produce, however on the kharif crop of 1996 the respondent no.1
allegedly ‘refused to liquidate his obligation regarding the share of
produce and told that suit land was not in the names of plaintiffs”.
Subsequently the appellants scrutinized the revenue record and it was
discovered that the suit property had been shown to be gifted to the
respondent no.1 and Yasin (legal heirs are impleaded as respondents
no. 2 to 5) by Mst. Ghausan, whereas Mst. Ghausan had never offered
to gift the same in her lifetime, nor had any acceptance or transfer of
possession taken place. The learned counsel for the appellants further
argued that the concurrently rendered judgments and decrees of the
Trial and Appellate Courts were in accordance with law, and the
interference of the learned High Court therewith was not justified.
4. The present respondents filed the Civil Revision before the High
Court with the plea that the judgments and decrees of the lower fora are
liable to be set aside on account of mis-reading and non-reading of
evidence on record and that the Trial and Appellate Court have erred in
observing that a tamleek is not recognizable if the same is mutated to
deprive the real inheritors of the property as the suit property was gifted
to the respondents during Mst. Ghausan’s lifetime and she had
appeared before the Revenue Officer in this regard. It was submitted
that no description of the allegation of fraud was provided in the plaint,
nor was any date of death cited for Mst. Ghausan. It was further alleged
that the question of limitation was wrongly decided and, although the
respondents had established their entire case by producing the
necessary witnesses, heavy reliance was placed on the solitary
statement of the appellant no.1 which was a material illegality.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and carefully
examined the available record, along with the concurrent findings of the
lower fora. The impugned judgment clearly reflects that the High Court
has properly scrutinized the evidence adduced by the parties and the
Judgments and Decrees of the lower Courts and, after proper
application of mind, has reached a just and equitable conclusion. For
C.A. No.1300/2019 3
ease of reference the operative paragraphs of the impugned judgment
are reproduced hereunder:
“5. It was claim of the respondent-plaintiff Faheeman Begum that in
fact no Tamleek was made in favour of the petitioners and the
mutation No.260 dated 29.12.1981 was based on fraud,
misrepresentation and collusion. After such allegation, the petitioners
were under burden to prove valid Execution of said mutation, for
which they produced Allah Bukhsh (D.W.1) Lumberdar, Jumma Shah
(D.W.2) Tehsildar, Mumtaz Hussain Patwari (D.W.4), Sardar Yar
Muhammad Buzdar Assistant Commissioner (D.W.5), Muhammad
Shafi retired Patwari (D.W.6) and one of the petitioners-defendants
Islam-Ud-Din as D.W.3; they all have supported the stance take up by
the petitioners and have deposed that the mutation on Tamleek was
executed in accordance with law and Mst. Ghausan while appearing
before the revenue officer got the same executed. All the witnesses
remained affirm on material points. It has come on record that Mst.
Ghausan remained alive for a considerable time but in her life time
she did not ever challenge the veracity and legality of mutation in
dispute; thus, as per ratio of judgment reported as Abdul Haq and
another v. Mst. Surrya Begum and others (2002 SCMR 1330) the
respondent-plaintiff Mst. Faheeman Begum had no locus standi to call
into question the same while filing suit as admittedly the said
mutation has been given effect in the revenue record. Same is the
position in esteemed judgment reported as Muhammad Rustam and
another v. Mst. Makhan Jan and others (2013 SCMR 299) & (PLJ
2013 SC 96).
Apart from this, the respondent-plaintiff Mst. Faheeman Begum has
neither described the ingredients of fraud in plaint as required by
Order VI, Rule 4 of the CPC nor proved the same as to how the
petitioners committed fraud; as against this, as stated above, the
petitioners produced all the relevant witnesses in the witness box to
prove the valid execution of mutation in their favour. They are in
possession of the disputed property and nothing is on record to
suggest that they ever paid share of produce to the respondent(s)-
plaintiff(s), rather it has been proved on record that donor and donees
appeared before the concerned authorities and mutation of Tamleek
was entered and attested in accordance with law. Reliance is placed
on Taj Muhammad Khan through L.Rs. and another v. Mst. Munawar
Jan and 2 others (2009 SCMR 598).
Moreover, the mutation in dispute was executed on 29.12.1981,
whereas the suit was instituted on 03.05.1997, which was badly
barred by limitation.” (emphasis supplied by us)
6. In the instant case the respondents have substantiated the fact of
tamleek through cogent evidence in the form of the revenue record and
witnesses produced before the Trial Court, as outlined in the impugned
judgment, but the learned Trial and Appellate Courts have failed to
consider the evidence in its true perspective. The learned High Court
also noted that the suit was badly barred by time as the mutation in
dispute was executed on 29.12.1981, whereas the suit was filed with a
delay of almost 15 years on 03.05.1997.
7. If the concurrent findings recorded by the lower fora are found to be
in violation of law, or based on misreading or non-reading of evidence,
then they cannot be treated as being so sacrosanct or sanctified that
C.A. No.1300/2019 4
cannot be reversed by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction which is
pre-eminently corrective and supervisory in nature. In fact, the Court in
its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), can even exercise its suo motu jurisdiction to
correct any jurisdictive errors committed by a subordinate Court to
ensure strict adherence to the safe administration of justice. The
jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 115, CPC is to
satisfy and reassure that the order is within its jurisdiction; the case is
not one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction and, in
abstaining from exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally
or in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, or by
committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which
affected the ultimate decision. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is
restricted to the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence,
jurisdictional error or an illegality in the judgment of the nature which
may have a material effect on the result of the case, or if the conclusion
drawn therein is perverse or conflicting to the law.
8. The learned High Court therefore rightly relied on the judgments
rendered by this Court in Abdul Haq and another v. Mst. Surrya Begum
(2002 SCMR 1330), Taj Muhammad Khan thr. L.Rs and another v.
Mst. Munawar Jan and others (2009 SCMR 598), and Muhammad
Rustam and another v. Mst. Makhan Jan and others (2013 SCMR
299), and held that the instant appellant had no locus standi to
challenge the legality of the mutation on a vague allegation of fraud
when Mst. Ghausan had never challenged the same in her life time and
the mutation had been given effect in the revenue record.
9. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the appellants was
unable to persuade us that there was any error, perversity, or legal or
jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment warranting the
interference of this Court. Consequently, this Civil Appeal is dismissed.
Judge
Islamabad
03.05.2023
Faaiza/Khalid
Judge
Approved for reporting.
Comments
Post a Comment