| Case ID |
f969c6a6-970a-4230-9e16-fe19fea4d85c |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
R.S.A. No. 46 of 2007 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 12, 2013 |
| Hearing Date |
Jun 12, 2013 |
| Decision |
The appeal was allowed, and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed with costs. The court found that the plaintiffs had not adequately challenged the validity of the mutation attested in favor of the defendants. The court emphasized that the right to sue in cases of wrong mutation accrues at the time of attestation. The plaintiffs failed to prove that the mutation was not sanctioned by the deceased's free will and consent. The court noted that the plaintiffs had not explained the significant delay in filing their suit, which was time-barred under the Limitation Act. The court held that since the defendants had improved the land and had been in possession, the plaintiffs could not simply seek a declaration without asking for possession. Ultimately, the court concluded that the findings of the lower courts were erroneous and not supported by the facts and applicable law. |
| Summary |
In the case of R.S.A. No. 46 of 2007 at the Lahore High Court, the core issue revolved around the validity of a mutation regarding land ownership following the death of Sher Muhammad. The plaintiffs, claiming to be legal heirs, filed a suit for declaration against the defendants who had been attesting the mutation. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to challenge the mutation within the time frame specified by the Limitation Act, which is six years. The court also noted that the original owner, Sher Muhammad, never disputed the mutation during his lifetime. The judgment emphasized the importance of proving the invalidity of the mutation, which the plaintiffs did not accomplish. The court ruled that the plaintiffs' claim was not maintainable under the Specific Relief Act since they did not seek possession of the property. The decision ultimately highlighted the legal principles surrounding land revenue, inheritance rights, and the necessity for timely legal action in property disputes. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J
|
| Lawyers |
Sheikh Naveed Shehryar,
Miss Najma Parveen,
Mian Abdul Aziz
|
| Petitioners |
4 others,
KHUDA BAKHSH JAVED
|
| Respondents |
6 others,
AHMAD
|
| Citations |
2013 SLD 2897,
2013 YLR 2576
|
| Other Citations |
Muhammad Amir v. Mst. Beevi and others 2007 SCMR 614,
Abdul Ahad and others v. Roshan Din and 36 others PLD 1979 SC 890,
Muhammad Sadiq represented by Muhammad Sarwar and others v. Amir Muhammad and others 2006 SCMR 702,
M. Imamuddin v. Sh. Bashir Ahmad and 7 others 1989 CLC 2309,
Jamila Khatoon and others v. Aish Muhammad and others 2011 SCMR 222,
Atta Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh and others 2007 SCMR 1446,
Lal Khan through L.Rs. v. Muhammad Yousaf through L.Rs. PLD 2011 SC 657,
Mst. Salto (Sattan) v. Gaman (Deceased) through his legal representatives, 2003 CLC 456,
Abdul Haq and another v. Mst. Surrya Begum and others 2002 SCMR 1330,
Khawaja Muhammad Naeem and others v. Tasleem Jan and others 1980 CLC 1483
|
| Laws Involved |
West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967,
Limitation Act, 1908,
Specific Relief Act, 1877
|
| Sections |
42,
120,
42
|