Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal 720 of 1984, decided on 6th November, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, dated 19‑6‑1984 passed in R.S.A. No. 65 of 1984).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Safe administration of justice‑‑Misreading of evidence‑‑Plea raised that entries in revenue record had not been weighed in accordance with principles laid down by superior Courts‑‑Relevant entries in original record found unreliable and not supported by concerned officials‑‑Petition being devoid of substance, dismissed.

S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and R. Maqbul Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. S. A. Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 6th November, 1985.

By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 19‑6‑lyes4 passed in R.S.A. No.65 of 1984.

2. Agricultural land situate in village Shammer, Tehsil and District Gujranwala was sold to the petitioners through registered sale‑deed dated 5‑8‑1969. The respondent herein and one Muhammad Ashraf filed two separate suits for possession through pre‑emption on the ground of their superior rights being co‑owners in the holding in the said village qua the vendees/petitioners. Both the suits were consolidated and the learned Senior Civil Judge, on the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as 14 issues. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective claims and also placed on record copies of Jamabandis as well as entries from the Register of Heqdaran P.3 and P.4 showing the petitioners as owners of land in the said village beside the mutation in question. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit of respondents on the ground that the petitioners have legally improved their status before the institution of their suits through Mutation No.50.

3. Against the dismissal of the aforesaid suits only Hayat Muhammad respondent filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge heard and accepted the same vide judgment and decree dated 10‑3‑1984. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioners filed R.S.A. in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 19‑6‑1984.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the evidence on record proved the factum of mutation; its entry in the Roznamacha Waqa'ati and Register Intiqa'alat have not been weighed in accordance with the principles laid down by the superior Courts; that it is a case of misreading of evidence in which this Court may interfere for the safe administration of justice.

5. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and would refer to the impugned judgment of the learned High Court wherein it has been observed in paragraph No.3:‑

"Determination of the nature of the transaction is the only moot point in this appeal. The learned appellant Court below examined the original revenue record including the Roznamacha of Patwari and the register of mutations. It found that page on which Mutation No.50 had been entered was slightly shorter in size than the other pages, that lines on the page of Mutation No.50 were different in colour from the lines of other pages of the register which resembled with each other, and that page of Roznamacha Waqiati containing Report No.1y2 regarding Mutation No.50 was found to be slightly shorter in size than other pages. Portion of some of the pages bearing numbers were found torn out. Abdul Jabbar, Girdawar Qanungo D.W.6 refused to recognize his signatures on Mutation No.50 though he identified his signatures on Mutations Nos.49 and 51. He said that both Part Patwari and Part Sarkar of Mutation No.50 did not bear his signatures. He added that he could not identify the signatures of the attesting revenue officer on Mutation No.50."

This observation finds support from the evidence on record. Patwari of the Circle was examined by the learned trial Court who admitted in cross‑examination that the mutation in question had not been ante‑dated. However, he conceded that in the Jamabandi Mutation No.50 is followed by two Mutations Nos.51 and 52 which have not been incorporated in the Jamabandi as they were rejected. He further admitted that in the Roznamacha Waqa'ati regarding Mutation No.45 there is no entry; that in the said Roznamacha Khasra numbers of the gift have not been mentioned; and in the same Roznamcha pages have not been numbered and portion of the same is torn and that the pages numbers also could not be deciphered that on some of the pages on which page number is written that part is torn. Hence, we find no substance in this petition which is, consequently, dismissed.

M.I. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.