The basic issue relates to actual/correct date of death of the donor, namely, Jalal-ud-Din who admittedly was predecessor-in-interest of the respondents.

 The basic issue relates to actual/correct date of death of the donor, namely, Jalal-ud-Din who admittedly was predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The petitioners/defendants claim that the donor was their maternal grandfather and validly made the gift. It is also assertion of the petitioners that the respondents assailed the impugned mutation on the revenue side and their claim was rejected and hence, subsequent suit on the same subject is hit by doctrine of res-judicata and the suit was badly time barred, while it is case of the respondents that the donor was already dead on the date of recording of the impugned mutation, after suffering from serious illness, and the correct date of death has been clearly established through the inquiry conducted by the Officials.

Held that any decision, on the revenue side, does not operate as bar on a subsequent civil suit, more particularly, when question of fraud is involved in respect of which the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities is barred, for the reasons that the proceedings before the Revenue Officers and/or the Revenue Courts are summarily conducted without recording of evidence.

Section 11 of the CPC that is based on doctrine of res-judicata clearly stipulates that no subsequent suit shall be entertained in which the matter is directly and substantially the same in a former suit between the same parties and decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, Section 11 of the CPC is applicable only where earlier as well as the subsequent proceedings are before the Courts, which are competent to decide both the matters. Further held that it is by now well-settled that a mutation by itself does not create any title unless it can be substantiated to be backed by a valid transaction more particularly if the transaction is in the nature of Hiba depriving legal heirs of the donor. In the instant case, such detail is conspicuous by its absence inasmuch as neither the time of offer and acceptance of the gift has been mentioned in the written statement nor any witness has been produced in support of the said contentions

Civil Revision 1090-09
MUHAMMAD RASHID ETC VS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain
23-02-2023
2023 LHC 1403