Sain Muhammad Vs Patwari Halqa

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT

ABBOTTABAD BENCH

(Judicial Department) C. R No. 519-A/2026

Sain Muhammad (Petitioner/s)

VS

Patwari Halqa & others.

(Respondent/s)

Present: Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Lughmani, Advocate for the petitioners.

Dates of hearing: 16.09.2026

JUDGMENT

ABDUL FAYAZ, J.- Through the instant civil revision petition, the petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the judgment & order of learned Additional District Judge- II, Mansehra dated 11.06.2026, whereby, appeal filed by the present petitioners was dismissed and thereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 11.09.2023, whereby his suite was dismissed, has been maintained.

2.Precisely, the facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant civil revision petition are that the petitioners/plaintiffs brought a representative suit for declaration in respect of the property detailed in the

heading of the plaint by claiming that their predecessors had been owner in the suit property till the settlement of 1872, however, during the settlement of 1872, the defendants fraudulently excluded the name of their predecessor from the ownership and thus deprived them from their lawful entitlement in the suit property. The defendants were summoned by the learned trial Court, who failed to put appearance and were placed and proceeded against ex-parte. After recording ex-parte evidence, the learned trial Court heard arguments and vide judgment and decree dated11.09.2023, dismissed the suit of the petitioners for want of proof. The petitioners assailed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court through appeal, however, the appeal was also dismissed on merits as well as being barred by limitation. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court through instant civil revision.

3.Arguments heard and available record gone through.

4.Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a representative suit for declaration, challenging the revenue entries pertaining

to the suit property on the premise that their predecessors were owners thereof prior to the settlement of 1872, but during the said settlement, their names were fraudulently excluded from the ownership column of the revenue record. Admittedly, the very foundation of the petitioners’ claim rests upon the alleged incorrect entries made during the settlement of 1872, which have remained incorporated in the subsequent revenue record for more than a century.

Despite the passage of such a considerable period, neither the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, who was allegedly deprived of his proprietary rights at the relevant time, nor his successors challenged the said entries before any competent forum. The petitioners have also failed to establish through reliable and convincing evidence that their predecessor was the lawful owner of the suit property immediately before the settlement of 1872 and that his name was subsequently excluded from the ownership column without any lawful justification. Mere assertion of ancestral ownership, without establishing the original title and the alleged deprivation thereof, is insufficient

to entitle the petitioners to the declaration sought by them.

5.It is further observed that although the petitioners have alleged that their predecessor was fraudulently deprived of his proprietary rights during the settlement of 1872, no specific particulars of the alleged fraud have been furnished in the plaint. Neither the precise manner in which the fraud was committed nor the particular act or omission constituting such fraud has been disclosed. The petitioners have also failed to explain as to how and in what circumstances the alleged fraud remained undiscovered for such an extraordinary length of time. It is a settled principle of law that fraud must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be established through cogent and convincing evidence. A general or vague allegation of fraud, without disclosing its material particulars, does not satisfy the requirements of Order VI Rule 4, C.P.C. In the instant case, the petitioners have merely alleged that their predecessor was fraudulently excluded from the ownership of the suit property during the settlement of 1872, without identifying any particular fraudulent act or producing

sufficient evidence to substantiate such an allegation.

In these circumstances, the mere use of the expression "fraud" cannot render the disputed revenue entries illegal or furnish a lawful basis for reopening a claim which has remained unasserted for more than a century.

6.Another significant aspect of the matter is that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, who was allegedly deprived of his proprietary rights during the settlement of 1872, never questioned the correctness of the disputed entries during his lifetime. The petitioners have not furnished any satisfactory explanation for such prolonged inaction on the part of their predecessor or the succeeding generations. The petitioners, claiming through their predecessor, cannot merely rely upon an unsubstantiated allegation of fraud to revive a claim which remained unasserted for generations. The longstanding nature of the revenue entries, coupled with the absence of any convincing evidence establishing the petitioners' alleged ancestral title or the fraudulent exclusion of their predecessor, renders their claim legally unsustainable. The

learned Courts below were, therefore, justified in declining to grant the declaration sought by the petitioners.

7.The question of limitation also assumes considerable significance in the present case. The petitioners have sought to challenge the revenue entries originating from the settlement of 1872, without establishing any legally sustainable ground for bringing such a belated claim. No specific date of discovery of the alleged fraud has been satisfactorily established, nor has any convincing explanation been furnished as to why the disputed entries remained unchallenged by their predecessor and the succeeding generations. Although an established fraudulent transaction cannot be protected merely on account of the passage of time, a party seeking to invoke such a principle must first specifically plead and prove the alleged fraud and establish the necessary facts bringing the claim within the applicable law of limitation. The petitioners have failed to discharge this burden. The mere repetition of the disputed entries in the subsequent revenue record, in the circumstances of the

present case, cannot by itself revive an otherwise stale and unsubstantiated claim. Consequently, the petitioners cannot escape the consequences of limitation merely by raising a general allegation of fraud. The learned appellate Court has also dismissed their appeal on merits as well as on the ground of limitation, and no sufficient ground has been made out before this Court to disturb the findings so recorded.

8.It is equally important to observe that the defendants were proceeded against ex-parte before the learned trial Court. However, their failure to contest the suit did not absolve the petitioners/plaintiffs of their legal obligation to establish their entitlement to the relief claimed. The petitioners were required to prove their asserted title, the alleged fraudulent exclusion of their predecessor from the revenue record and their consequent entitlement to the declaration sought.

The learned trial Court, upon examining the ex-parte evidence produced by the petitioners, rightly concluded that they had failed to establish their case and consequently dismissed the suit. The learned appellate Court, upon reappraisal of the material

available on record, concurred with the findings of the learned trial Court. The concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below are based upon a proper appreciation of the available evidence and suffer from no material irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section

115, C.P.C.

9.In view of the above discussion, this civil revision petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed in limine.

Announced

Tufail. /*

JUDGE