Sale mutation---Proof---Burden of proof---Petitioners claimed that their predecessor (defendant) had purchased land through a sale mutation attested on 13 June 1994---Respondent-lady (plaintiff) filed a suit ..

 Sale mutation---Proof---Burden of proof---Petitioners claimed that their predecessor (defendant) had purchased land through a sale mutation attested on 13 June 1994---Respondent-lady (plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration on 6 November 2008 to challenge the said sale mutation---Petitioners' contended that the suit of respondent was hopelessly time barred, and that the respondent had simply denied her thumb impression on the said mutation and the report of the Provincial Finger Print Bureau was in itself not sufficient for disproving that the sale mutation bore her thumb impression---Validity---Burden to establish the purported sale lay upon the beneficiary of the sale (i.e. predecessor of the petitioners) but this was not discharged---Respondent was not required to disprove the sale yet she undertook to do so; she came forward and had her purported thumb impression was sent for forensic determination by the Provincial Finger Print Bureau, which submitted a comprehensive report and the witness from Finger Print Bureau was also produced as a witness---It was conclusively established that the thumb impression on the sale mutation was not hers---No evidence was produced to show that the respondent-plaintiff was aware about the sale mutation much before then---Trial Judge had correctly noted that the onus to prove it lay upon the defendant (predecessor of the petitioners)--- In attending to the issue of limitation the trial Judge determined that the defendant had not been able to establish prior knowledge---Fifteen years had passed since the suit was filed by the respondent, and at three different forums she succeeded and the petitioners lost---Possession of the subject land remained with the petitioners, who had disregarded all three decisions of the courts and continues to retain the illegal possession of the land---As the petitioners had remained in illegal possession of the said land the Supreme Court imposed compensatory cost in the sum of one hundred thousand rupees---Supreme Court directed that the petitioners shall immediately hand over the subject land to the respondent, and if they failed to do so the concerned revenue officer/official shall ensure that its possession was delivered to the respondent immediately.

GHULAM FAREED (DECEASED) vs DAULAN BIBI
2024 SCMR 202