Lawkidunya Banner

Incorporation of Inheritance Mutation PLJ 2020 Lahore (Note) 32

PLJ 2020 Lahore (Note) 32 Incorporation of Inheritance Mutation

PLJ 2020 Lahore (Note) 32 Incorporation of Inheritance Mutation, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)—Section 115–Suit for declaration–Dismissed–Appeal–Dismissed–Inheritance mutation–Death of owner–Incorporation of inheritance mutation–Appeal–Allowed–Cancellation of inheritance mutation–Revision petition–Allowed–Appeal–Dismissed–Burden of prove–Concurrent findings–Maintainability–Challenge to–Respondents neither appeared before trial Court nor cross examined witnesses of petitioner nor produced any evidence to prove their alleged objections nor they made any bonafide attempt to adduce their evidence even in these proceedings–As respondent asserted that Ghulam Khawaja was issueless and petitioner has fraudulently got his inheritance mutation it must be remembered that burden of proving fraud was on party (respondent) alleging fraud and that to prove with extraordinary corroborative believable, trustworthy evidence, particularly, where a long period has expired and valuable rights have stood accrued to other side–Furthermore, from perusal of documentary evidence produced by petitioners/plaintiffs it is interesting that copy of I.D Card Exh.P-12 proves that petitioner Muhammad Ramzan is son of Ghulam Khawaja and proprietary rights given by Government to petitioners–Copy of Mutation shows that Muhammad Ramzan and Bakhtan Bibi became owners after death of Ghulam Khawaja and respondents/defendants obtained said land transferred in favour of Shahid Nawaz Khan (Lambardar) on 22.08.2009 and said mutation never challenged by Respondent No. 1 before any forum which proves that Muhammad Ramzan and Bakhtan Bibi admittedly are son and daughter of Ghulam Khawaja–Return of petitioner to competent forum of civil Court does not term as switching over to another forum as such petitioner has rightly filed instant suit and same is maintainable whereas finding of two Courts below are patently illegal, perverse and not sustainable even otherwise same are devoid of any reasoning, as such, this Court has jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC to interfere in concurrent decisions of learned Courts below–Civil revision way allowed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *