Law that neither presumption of correctness nor that of truth to the contents of mutation is attached under the law.

13. It is settled principle of law that neither presumption of correctness nor that of truth to the contents of mutation is attached under the law. Once the existence of a transaction itself has been questioned by a party in suit, it was legal obligation of the person claiming benefit thereunder to prove the same. Most important entities in connection with the attestation of mutation were the Patwari Halqa who had to enter the mutation and the Revenue Officer who was to attest the same. The defendant No.1, thus, as per principle settled in the cases of “Muhammad Akram and another v. Altaf Ahmad” (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 688) “Sher Baz Khan and others v. Mst. Malkani Sahibzadi Tiwana and others” (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 849) was required to produce the said two persons in the witness box to prove the valid attestation of the mutations in question. The defendant No.1 neither produced the Patwari Halqa nor Revenue Officer who sanctioned the impugned mutations and thus the inference which may be drawn is that defendants had failed to prove the valid sanctioning of the impugned mutations. 

Part of Judgment

 THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE 

Civil Revision

1777836.955-15

2018 LHC 701