Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)--
----Ss. 39, 42 & 54--Exchange of Property--Dismissal of suit for declaration cancellation of mutation entries and permanent injunction-Acceptance of appeal--Non-production of oral or documentary evidence regarding fraudulently mutation entries--Silence of agreement regarding description of property and mutation numbers--No cause of action--Challenge to--Nothing specifically was brought on record through any oral or documentary evidence to suggest that mutation entries in question have fraudulently been carried out by petitioners in their favour--Witnesses have not mentioned a single word with regard to fraudulent transfer of disputed property--Agreement is silent with regard to description of property, its mutation numbers etc, thus does not disclose any cause of action in favour of plaintiffs--Defendants produced as many as ten (10) witnesses and also recorded statement of their attorney and all of them deposed possession of cultivation of defendants--Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 remained alive for more than twenty (20) years after transfer of property in question in revenue record, but they kept silent, even plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 also kept mum since long
time--Respondent have Failed to prove their case through confidence inspiring evidence, main issue No. 3 has been resolved against plaintiffs they have failed to prove issue--It is now well settled principle of law that lacunas of defendants cannot be extended in favour of plaintiffs--Revision petition allowed.
[Pp. 10, 12 & 15] A, B, C, D, E & F
2013 SCMR 299 ref.
Mr. Shams-ud-Din Achakzai, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. Masoom Khan Kakar, Advocate for Respondents.
Mr. Saifullah Sanjarani, Assistant A.G. for State.
Date of hearing: 6.10.2020.
PLJ 2022 Quetta 7
Present: Abdullah Baloch, J.
ABDUL GHAFFAR and others--Petitioners
versus
SHINKO and others--Respondents
C.R. No. 46 of 2012, decided on 23.10.2020.
Judgment
This petition is directed against the judgment & decree dated 18th February 2012 (hereinafter referred as “the impugned judgment & decree”) passed by learned District Judge, Zhob (hereinafter referred as “the appellate Court”) whereby the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and the suit of plaintiffs was decreed against the petitioners and the judgment & decree dated 25th November 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Zhob (hereinafter referred as “the trial Court”) was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit Declaration, Cancellation of Mutation Entries and Permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants in the trial Court with the averments that they were owner of land bearing Khata No. 172, Kathooni No. 192/193, Khasra No. 41-42 total 83 rod and 20 pole at Meena Bazar was exchanged with the father of defendant” Nos. 3 to 6 and possession was given to them. In exchange of that they got possession of a piece of land bearing Khata No. 165, Kathooni No. 185 Khasra No. 4 rod 428 and 18 pole from the father of Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 and the said piece of land was registered in the name of father of Defendant Nos. 3 to 6, but defendant/Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 with collaboration of revenue staff fraudulently transferred the land in question in their name through fake sale deed and documents.
3. The suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants by means of filing written statements. After framing issues and recording evidence pro & contra, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs vide judgment & decree dated 25th November 2011.
4. Being aggrieved, the respondents/appellants assailed the judgment & decree of the learned trial Court before the learned appellate Court and the appeal of the respondents/appellants was accepted and the suit was decreed in their favour, vide impugned judgment & decree as mentioned hereinabove in Para No. 1. Whereafter the instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, which reveals that the plaintiffs elucidated that they have exchanged a piece of land having Khata No. 172, Kathooni No. 192/193, Khasra No. 41-42 total 83 rod and 20 pole at Meena Bazar with the father of Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 and given possession of the same to them. In exchange of that they got the possession of a piece of land bearing Khata No. 165, Kathooni No. 185 Khasra No. 4 rod 428 and 18 pole from the father of Defendant Nos. 3 to 6, but the by petitioners/Defendant Nos. I & 2 with collaboration of revenue staff fraudulently transferred the land in question in their name through fake sale deed and documents.
6. On the other hand, the petitioners/Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 vehemently denied the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents, while Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 conceded the claim of the plaintiffs. Out of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:
“1. Whether no cause of action accrued to plaintiffs’ side to file’ instant suit against the defendants?
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable by virtue of less Court fee, jurisdiction and time limitations, as mentioned in legal Objections 1, 2, 3 of written statement of the Defendant's No. 1 to 2?
3. Whether Defendants’ No. 1 to 2 illegally and fraudulently through misrepresentation mutated property in dispute?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief claimed?
5. Relief?”
7. The entire case of the parties revolved around the Issue No. 3 that “Whether Defendants No. 1 to 2 illegally and fraudulently through misrepresentation mutated property in dispute?” in support of their claim the plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 produced as many eleven (11) PWs and also the attorney of the plaintiffs recorded his statement. The reprisal of entire evidence reflects that nothing specifically was brought on record through any oral or documentary evidence to suggest that the mutation entries in question have fraudulently been carried out by the defendants/petitioners in their favour in this regard PW-1 Musa Kalim, PW-2 Mulla Iran, PW-Shakar Din who have brought on record an unregistered stamp paper as Ex.P/3-A, which suggests that their parents 35 years ago sell and exchanged the property in question, but however, it is pertinent to mention here that this agreement was carried out on 25th August 2006 by the plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 3 to 6, even these witnesses have not mentioned a single word with regard to fraudulent transfer of the disputed property, while PW-4 Ayaz Khan is also one of the signatory of Ex.P/3-A and he has also did not depose a single word with regard to fraudulent transfer and mutation. Likewise, PW-5 Saeedullah, PW-6 Haji Sharaf Khan, PW-7 Juma Khan, PW-8 Abdullah Shah, PW-9 Muhammad Ismail and PW-11 Dost Muhammad, Record Keeper, Tehsil office Zhob he has produced Fard-e-Haqqiyat as Ex. P/11-A, which was correct according to their record during cross examination in reply of Question No. 2 he stated that:
"یہ درست ہے کہ EXP/11-A پر ظاہر شاہ کے نام پر کٹ کے نشان ہے ملاحضہ کیا گیا ظاہر شاہ کے نام پر بال پن سے کٹ کے نشان پایا گیا۔"
In reply of Question No. 3 he deposed that:
"یہ درست ہے کہ EXP/11-D کھاتہ کھتونی نمبر اور تاریخ درج نہ ہے۔
And specifically In reply of Question No. 4 he replied that:
"یہ درست ہے کہ درخواست EXP/11-D میں خرید و فروخت کا ذکر بھی نہ ہے۔
In reply of Question No. 5 he answered that:
"یہ درست ہے کہ جس اراضی کو ہم کسی دوسرے شخص کے نام انتقال کرانا مقصود ہو تو اسکے لئے تصدیق و شناخت کنندہ کا ہونا یعنی اسکا دستخط ضروری ہے۔
In reply of Question No. 6 he stated that:
"یہ درست ہے کہ EXP/11-A میں تصدیق کنندہ میں ملک فتح محمد ولد بلو کے دستخط ہے۔
In reply of Question No. 7 he replied that:
"یہ درست ہے کہ EXP/11-A کے مطابق انتقال 1990 میں ہو چکا ہے۔
In reply of Question No. 10 he deposed that:
"یہ درست ہے کہ EXP/11-A کے مطابق چھ حصہ داران میں سے ہر حصہ دار کے حصہ میں تقریباً ساڑھے بیس ایکڑ زمین آتی ہے۔
In reply of Question No. 11 he stated:
"یہ درست ہے کہ پیش کردہ دستاویزات بالکل اصل ہے۔
In reply of Question No. 12 he answered that:
"یہ درست ہے کہ کوئی جعلی کاروائی دستاویزات میں نہ ہوئی ہے۔
On 10th September 2011 once again the PW-11 was called for cross examination of respondents/Defendant Nos. 3 to 6, wherein in reply of Question No. 1 he stated that:
"یہ درست ہے کہ EXP/11-A انتقال پر ظاہر شاہ کا دستخط ہے لیکن وہ قلم سے کاٹا گیا ہے۔ اور ساتھ ہی اکبر علی کادستخط ہے۔
In reply of Question No. 2 he replied that:
"مجھے علم نہ ہے کہ اکبر علی پڑھا لکھا نہ تھا اور دستخط نہ کر سکتا تھا اور انگھوٹا لگاتاتھا۔
8. The attorney of plaintiffs Shinko son of Majeed, while recording his statement, stated that their elders have exchanged the land bearing Khasra Nos. 41-42 30-35 years ago with one Akbar Ali the predecessor of Defendant Nos. 3 to 6, while he asked the sons of Akbar Ali in the year 2006 to get effect proper transfer of land in question, however, in the year 2007 they came to know that land in question had fraudulently been transferred in the name of Defendant No. 1 in the year 1990, he also deposed that with regard to exchange of land in question, the plaintiffs along with Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 carried out an agreement in the year 2006 and both the parties admitted the fact that their elders have exchanged the land 30 to 35 years before. In reply of questions he stated that:
ہمارے وہ زمین انتقال والی ہے اور اُس وقت بھی میرے والد کے نام پر ہے۔
میرا والد تقریباً 13، 14 سال پہلے فوت ہوئے ہے۔
یہ درست ہے کہ فتح محمد ولد بلو ہمارے کلی کا ملک ہے۔
یہ درست ہے کہ ملک کو گاوں میں فوتگی وغیرہ یا دیگر کی واقع کا علم ہوتا ہے۔
یہ درست ہے کہ ہمارے علاقے میں تقریباً 50 سال پہلے بندوبست ہو چکا ہے۔
ہم نے آپنی زمین ابھی تک اکبر علی والوں کے نام پر منتقل نہ کرائی ہے۔ از خود کہا کہ زمین دی ہے لیکن رواج اور اعتبار ایک دوسرے پر ہیں اس وجہ سے منتقل نہ کیا گیا۔
اکبر علی اور میرا والد زمین کے تبادلہ کے بعد اندزاً 20 سال تک زندہ رہیں۔
یہ درست ہے کہ ان 20 سالوں کے دوران میرے اور اکبر علی کے والد کے درمیان کوئی تحریر نہ ہوا از خود کہا کہ ہمارے رواج اعتماد کے وجہ سے نہ کیا۔
یہ درست ہے کہ اکبر علی کے چار بیٹوں کو میں نے بطور گواہ پیش نہ کیا ہے از خود کہا کہ ظاہر شاہ بطور مدعا علیہم شامل ہے۔ یہ غلط ہےکہ ظاہر شاہ اور میں نے مل کر جھوٹا دعویٰ تیار کیا ہے۔
9. The perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence including the agreement dated 25th August 2006 Ex. P/3-A does not disclose any fraudulent transfer of the property in question by the defendants/petitioners, even if all the agreement dated 25th August 2006 Ex. P/3-A taken into consideration that the elders of the respondents have exchanged the property in question, the agreement is silent with regard to description of the property, its mutation numbers etc, thus does not disclose any cause of action in favour of plaintiffs.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that the burden of proof of Issue No. 3 was on the shoulders of plaintiffs, which they failed to discharge, however, in rebuttal the defendants also produced as many as ten (10) witnesses and also recorded the statement of their attorney and all of them deposed the possession of cultivation of defendants and mainly one official witness i.e. DW-9 Dost Muhammad, Record Keeper Tehsil Zhob, who produced Intheqal No. 235, Khata Kathooni No. 45/48 and 161/180 as Ex. D/9-A in reply of Question No. 1 he stated that:
یہ درست ہے کہ پیش کردہ انتقال 05/01/2005 کو درج ہوا ہے۔
In reply of Question No. 2 he deposed that:
یہ درست ہے ریکارڈ کے مطابق اکبر علی ولد عطا محمد کا جائیداد ظاہر شاہ، عبد اللہ شاہ، متین شاہ، فواد شاہ کے نام منتقل ہوا ہے جو کہ پسران اکبر علی ہے۔
In reply of Question No. 3 he replied that:
یہ درست ہے کہ کھاتہ کھتونی نمبر 165/185 اکبر علی مذکورہ سے ظاہر شاہ کے نام پر تحریر ہو چکا ہے لیکن بعد میں قلم سے کاٹا گیا ہے۔
11. It is worthwhile to mention here that no question was put to the DWs with regard to fraudulent transfer of the property in question. On the other hand, the respondents/Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 did not produce any witness except the statement of respondent/ Defendant No. 3 Zahir Shah, who deposed that his father has exchanged the property in question bearing Khasra No. 41-42 with the father of Shinko 30-35 years ago and given the possession of exchanged properties to each other, while property in question was fraudulently transferred in the name of plaintiffs in the year 1990. In reply of questions he stated that:
یہ درست ہے کہ نصر اللہ نے میرے اور میرے بھائی کے خلاف قاضی کے عدالت میں ایک دعویٰ دائر کیا تھا۔
یہ درست ہے کہ وہ دعویٰ خسرہ نمبر 41-42 کے اراضیات میں سے تھا از خود کہا کہ ان خسرہ جات میں کئی حصہ دار ہیں۔
یہ درست ہے کہ وہ دعویٰ 09/03/2009 میں ڈگری ہوا تھا۔
یہ درست ہے کہ میں نے اُس ڈگری کے خلاف مجلس شوریٰ میں اپیل کی تھی جو خارج ہوئی اور اب میرے اپیل ہائیکورٹ میں پینڈنگ ہے۔
میں نے داد گل کے کوئٹہ میں فوت ہونے کی بابت کوئی فوتگی سرٹیفکیٹ عدالت میں پیش نہ کیا ہے۔
میرے نام پر کوئی بندوبست شدہ اراضی نہ ہے۔ البتہ میرے والد کے نام پر بندوبستی اراضی ہے۔
یہ درست ہے کہ بندوبست 1968-69 میں ہوا تھا۔
جب ہمارے والدین نے اراضی کا تبادلہ کیا تھا تو اُسوقت بندوبست ہو چکا تھا۔
میرے والدین نے تحصلیدار کو تبادلہ کے حوالے سے زمین ناموں پر ٹرانسفر کرنے کے بابت تحصلیدار کو درخواست نہ دیا تھا۔
میرے والد 1997 میں فوت ہوا۔
یہ درست ہے کہ 1990، 1997 تک میرے والد نے اراضی کے ٹرانسفر ہونے کے حوالے سے کوئی شکایتی درخواست تحصیل وغیرہ میں نہ دیا تھا۔ از خود کہا کہ علم ہی نہیں تھا۔ البتہ شنکو اس وقت بھی زمین کاشت کر رہا تھا۔
یہ غلط ہے کہ فتح محمد ولد بلو ہمارے علاقے کا ملک تھا۔ از خود کہا کہ ہم کلی ابراہیم زئی والوں کا ملک ہاشم ہے۔
یہ درست ہے کہ ملک فتح نے اس اراضی کے انتقال کے تصدیق تحصیل میں کی تھی از خود کہا کہ غلط طور پر کی تھی۔
یہ درست ہے کہ میں نے کوئی گواہ پیش نہ کیا ہے کہ متدعویہ اراضی میرا والد کاشت کرتا تھا از خود کہا کہ میں خود گواہ ہوں کہ ہم اپنے والد کے ساتھ بچپن میں کاشت میں مدد کرتے تھے۔
یہ درست ہے کہ میں نے اپنے والد کا فوتگی سرٹیفکیٹ عدالت پیش نہ کی ہے۔
میں نے تحصیل میں والد کے فوتگی کے بعد جائیداد اپنے نام ٹرانسفر کرنے کے بابت کوئی درخواست نہ دیا تھا۔
12. It is important to mention here that the said witness in cross examination in reply of a question stated that they have carried out an agreement with the plaintiffs in the year 2006, but he has failed to mention a single word in his examination in chief with regard to carrying out any agreement pertaining to the disputed land. He also deposed incorrect that no property of his father has been transferred in his name, while DW-9 Dost Muhammad, Record Keeper of Tehsil Zhob produced Intheqal No. 235 of Khasra No. 41-42 in reply of Question No. 1 stated that:
یہ درست ہے کہ پیش کردہ انتقال 05/01/2005 کو درج ہوا ہے۔
In reply of Question No. 2 he deposed that:
یہ درست ہے ریکارڈ کے مطابق اکبر علی ولد عطا محمد کا جائیداد ظاہر شاہ، عبداللہ شاہ، متین شاہ، فواد شاہ کے نام منتقل ہوا ہے جو کہ پسران اکبر علی ہے۔
13. From the entire reappraisal of evidence produced by the parties, it appears that an attempt made by the plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 by garb of simple agreement dated 25th August 2006 to usurp the property in dispute, which was not claimed by their elders in their life time as both the predecessors of the plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 remained alive for more than twenty (20) years after the transfer of property in question in revenue record, but they kept silent, even the plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 also kept mum since long time. Reliance in this regard is placed in the case of “Muhammad Rustam and others vs. Mst. Makhan Jan and others” 2013 SCMR 299, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble apex Court that:
“3. Having heard petitioners’ learned counsel at some length, we find that admittedly the impugned mutation of inheritance bearing No. 571 dated 9-7-1927 was never challenged by Mst. Karam Jan; that she remained alive till 1975 and no reason whatsoever is reflected either in the plaint or in the evidence led to indicate as to why she did not challenge the said mutation. It has never been the case of the petitioners that either they or their predecessor-in-interest were unaware of the said mutation. In the afore-referred circumstances, the judgment of the learned High Court is unexceptionable. So far as the precedent case-law to which reference has been made by petitioners’ learned counsel is concerned, the same is distinguishable as in none of the judgments the question of locus standi was a moot point. In Abdul Haq v. Mst. Surraya Begum (2002 SCMR 1330), this Court inter alia was seized of a similar issue and while dismissing the petition, it observed as follows:
“11. Atta Muhammad was deprived of right to inherit the property as a consequence of mutation in dispute but he did not challenge the same during his life time. The petitioners claimed the property through Atta Muhammad as his heirs who fried the suit as late in 1979 about nine years after the sanction of mutation which had already been given effect to in the record of rights. The petitioners, therefore, had no locus standi to challenge the mutation independently, for Atta Muhammad through whom they claimed inheritance himself had not challenged the same during his lifetime.”
14. Thus, plaintiffs/respondent have failed to prove their case through confidence inspiring evidence, however, main Issue No. 3 has been resolved against the plaintiffs they have failed to prove the issue. It is now well settled principle of law that the lacunas of defendants cannot be extended in favour of plaintiffs.
