C.P. 3958 2019
C.P. 3958 2019
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR
JUDGMENT
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned
judgment of the learned High Court is based on misreading and
non-reading of evidence recorded in the Trial Court and without
any cogent reason or justification, the learned High Court upset the
concurrent findings recorded by two courts below. It was further
argued that the transfer of land through mutation under Section
42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 is a valid method of transfer of
land. It was next contended that the suit was time barred, which
important aspect was also ignored by the learned High Court. He
further argued that the respondent personally appeared before the
competent authority at the time of recording mutation of land in
question in favour of the petitioner and ample evidence was
available on record to confirm the presence of the respondent at
the time of mutation.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that after denial
of the transaction of sale, recording of Rapat Roznamcha and
attestation of impugned mutation, the onus of proving the same
was shifted on to the petitioner. It was further contended that the
Rapat Roznamcha No.336 dated 21.04.1994 was illegally
incorporated and the Mutation No.1222 dated 31.05.1994, which
mentions the presence of vendor/respondent, the
vendee/petitioner and Muhammad Jahangir P.W.2, was a result of
misapplication of law. The respondent during pendency of suit
moved an application for amendment of the plaint which was partly
allowed but the amendment for seeking possession of land was
declined by the Trial Court. It was further argued that P.W.2,
Muhammad Jahangir, fully supported the version of the
respondent. It was further averred that mutation was recorded in
violation of Section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, and mere
availability of signatures of the parties, identifier and witnesses on
the reverse side of the mutation cannot be made basis for sanction
of the mutation. It was further contended that the original
Mutation No. 1222 dated 31.05.1994 was not produced before the
Trial Court but only attested photo copies were produced at the
time of recording of evidence. The learned counsel fully supported
the impugned judgment and concluded that the respondent neither
appeared before the Tehsildar nor recorded his statement as he
C.P.No.3958/2019 -3-
appear physically for that mutation too. The Ex-D8 displays that
the same Revenue Officer attested this mutation while Khurshid
Ahmad, DW-2, Lambardar, identified the parties and Muhammad
Jahangir was alluded to as marginal witness in this mutation as
well. A forthright and candid manifestation of the evidence
including the documentary evidence stridently articulates that the
petitioner/defendant had established the transaction, its execution
as well as the genuineness of impugned mutation.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the case of
Muhammad Akram and another v.Altaf Ahmad (PLD 2003 SC 688),
in which this Court held that once a mutation is challenged, the
party that relies on such mutation(s) is bound to revert to the
original transaction and to prove such original transaction which
resulted into the entry or attestation of such mutation(s) in
dispute. The burden squarely lay on him to prove the transaction
because the existence thereof has throughout been alleged by him
in affirmative. He was bound to fail in the event of the non-proof of
transaction. He also referred to the case of Rehmatullah and others
v. Saleh Khan and others (2007 SCMR 729), in which this Court
held that it is settled law that entries in the mutation registers are
by themselves not conclusive evidence of the facts which they
purport to record. It is settled law that any person who is acquiring
title through mutation, the burden of proof of proving transaction
embodied in the mutation is upon him. It is also settled law that
C.P.No.3958/2019 -10-
Judge
Judge
Judge
Islamabad the
2nd February, 2022
Approved for reporting.