Section 34 of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42, the mutation affirmed by the plaintiff in question on the fraudulent plea, was required to be present on the parties in the matter, so as to acknowledge the sale and provide for possession. But the Revenue Officer buried the question of paying the sale consideration, citing the previous change, the seller was also not present before the Revenue Officer. The trial court correctly found that the mutation was granted on the basis of speculation, limitations and speculation. Gyrat was approved in glove with the revenue staff collusion, therefore, illegal way, was the result of false, fraud and collusion. The trial court properly set aside the variation in question H, exercising jurisdiction over the appeal, the court set aside the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate court and upheld the trial court's decision.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
