One month prior to institution of the suit is also not believable in view of the facts narrated above

Thus, the plea that the respondent No.1/plaintiff was not aware of the facts and all of a sudden came to know about the same about one month prior to institution of the suit is also not believable in view of the facts narrated above. In a reported case titled Muhammad Amir and others v. Mst. Beevi and others (2007 SCMR 614) the August Court of the Country held:-

 ’14. We will like to add that the contention that the donor perhaps did not know the mutation is, in the circumstances, not believable for the reason that a landowner is required to pay a number of Government dues on each crop and it is not possible that till his death which occurred after almost 24 years of the gift Lala remained unaware of attestation of the mutation. D.W.3 had stated that after one year after the gift Muhammad Amir had taken back the land from him but after two years it was again given to him for cultivation and at that time consolidation had already taken place. Thus, according to his evidence, consolidation had taken place somewhere in 1969-70. Since the consolidation, wands are made afresh it is not possible for a land owner not to come to know of a transaction in which his property stands alienated in favour of somebody else.’

Part of Judgment 

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT AT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision (Against Interim Order) Decree US. 115 C.P.C
1066739.2108-09

2018 LHC 285