He was bound to sell in the event of non proof transaction until the trial court resiled it

14. It is appreciable that the learned Civil Judge had correctly taken note of all these factors and recorded a finding that oral transaction could not be proved inasmuch as the payment of consideration and the transfer of possession was never established. The learned Addl. District Judge was persuaded by the existence of mutation of oral sale little appreciating that where the mutation is questioned on the plea that no oral sale was ever  made, the beneficiary of the transaction is under obligation to prove the oral sale by credible evidence. In “Muhammad Akram and another v. Altaf Ahmad” (PLD 2003 SC 688) it was observed by the August Supreme Court that “…it is settled principle of law that a mutation confers no title. Once a mutation is challenged, the party that relies on such mutations 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. This oft repeated principle of law is quite logical because a mutation not being a title deed is merely an evidence of some original transaction between the parties that had been struck by someone prior to the entry of mutation. Respondent Altaf Ahmad has utterly failed to revert back to any transaction and bring on record any oral and documentary evidence thereof. 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 sell in the event of non proof transaction until the trial court resiled it…”

Part of Judgment
Lahore High court
Civil Revision
2504305.125-17

2018 LHC 3528