Mst. Farkh Sultan Vs Haji Muhmmad younas

JUDGMEN? SHEIIT

PT]S IIAWAR HIGHC OURT . ABBOTTAB Al) BENCH

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision No.l82-A of 2018

.IU DGMtr]NT

l)ote tf heuring 26. j L20lu

Petitioner(q .. (Mst. l"arukh Sultan) b|' lluliz l/iikhur thnrud Khan, Advocale... ... ...

tlespondent(s)...(tlaii Muhammad Younas etc) by Mr- Muhommad Shouib Khan, ldvocale .........

SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIOUE SHAH. J:-

'l'hrough this singlc judgmcnt, this Cotrrt shall also disposc o1' ltcvision Petition No.145-4/20ltt titlcd 'Major (Reld) Faisal Shah vs. Haji Muhummad Younas elc', as both arc outcomc of thc consolidatcd judgnrcnr and dccrcc datcd 20.02.2018 passcd by thc learncd Additional l)istrict Judgc-lll, Abbottabad whcrcby, thc Appcals lilcd by pctitioncr/plaintill, Mst. lrar.ukh Sr-rltan rn thc instanr rcvisior pctitiorl and \1njor (ltctd) liaisal Shah, pctitioncr/dcfcndanr in Civil Ilevision No. 145-Al201 8 against the judgmcnt and di ti l{

dcclcc dalcd 07.01.2015 passcd by Civil .ludgc-ll' Abbottabad, wcrc dismisscd.

2.Ilrict' lacts o1' thc casc arc that pctitioncr, Mst. Irarukh Sultan filcd suit No'267/1 of 2009 lor clcolaration, pcrmancnl injunction and posscssion against rcspondcnts on 22.06.2009 to thc cll'cct that shc alongwith dolbndant No.3 (pctitioncr in CIt No. 145-A/2018) and prolbrn-ra rcspondcnt No.7 arc owncrs-in-posscssion of suit propcrty bcaring 'Khasra'No.1366 mcasuring 4 'kanals' 7 'ruarlas ' alongwith bungalow built thcreupon, situatcd in Mauza Mir Pur, 'l'chsil & District Abbottabacl bcing lcgal hcirs ol thcir nrothcl', Mst.

Surriya Ashral'ancl salc MLrtation No.3477 attcstc(i on I 5. 1 0. I 989 on bchalf o1'thcir mothcr, was wrong, against law, bascd on malafide and fraud, fictitious, and prcdcccssor ol' thc pctitioncr and dcfcndants No.3 and plolonna dcl'cndant No.7 has ncvcr translbrrcd any propcrty to rcspondcnls No.l and 2 and cntrics on thc basis o1'saicl rlutation in rcvcnuc rccord wcrc incll'cctivc ancl voicl on thc rights o1'thc pctitioncr ctc, which mutation is liablc to be canccllcd and respondcnts No.4 to 6 arc bound to

'lsl 'JJnureld/Jcuorlrlcd cq.l. 'scrued cql .lo crucpl^o pcproccr unoJ l€lil pcur€cl 0q.1. c

,, i,/rllru t t ,1 ,161 i..rof patn.rtl sD aar)ap aqt ol paltttua sr llrluntld ,t)qpL!/14 01 0to 2uor1r1tr:ttl afxt.rrJ fit 11nsa.t s^D I ol1! prnpua/ap lo anqs alll u! 1?/ uo!1sanh ur tl.radotd )aqlaql4 6 CldO l,snotqtcg[ puo pa8lol 'at1o/' s! 696t/0t/9t patop llht'oN uottDu'tw ta?taql4 '8 diO 1,t PUD €'oN sluopualap otu,ro/o"td pun /l1ryn1d /it lpadolcl pauraqut s'/ uoltsanb ut (uado..td ,taL!pq/L.t I 7J1161 i,uottca/a.t ol alqD!l ;:rt ltt7;:r ,t2t! ato/a.tat1l puo aaf ltno,'t paxrffn pu r^DLl //1utn1d .taLltatl/Ll '9 (1,10 t,t oN popuaJap puo //iturold ./it tuo.t/ iltarkucl "'ruatod pasoqc.tnd Z puo 1'o1g stuopua{ap raqp1/N4 'c (tdO l.patnq aw4 s7 //!tuptld ary p lnls .,taLllaLlll 'lz edo l,ans o1 paddolsa s1 /l1tu1o1d nqpqll € 61116 2ruloJ'rua"^atcl st w alqDulDtulDw s! lfitulo1d .{o lns DqpLll4 'Z 't ddo luotpD {o asnoc 7oB soq lllplnp 'taltpq,,Ll silns'.91,

'sotued oLlt Jo s8urPuold

luc8Jc^lp ct{] .lo 1no Sutsue sonssl 3ut,tro11o.1 oqt pcule{ unoc I?Ir1 pcuJsol cq.l. 'luoruolBls uc}lrr,\\ lleql Sullllluqns ,{q ltns ples cql pclscluoc pue pcJ€odde oq,tt 'pcuouurns clo,tr slucpuodsol cq.l. 'p.lo3ol onuo^cJ otll ut sollluo oql loo'l'loJ

liarukh Sultan in support o1' hcr suit rccordccl stalcmctlt o1'llaji Ali Akbar Khan as PW-l, who bcing Chairman 'Musalihati' Committce, madc clccision llx.PW l/l on thc application ol pctitioncr sr-rbrlittccl bclilrc SSl'], Abbottabacl; pctitioncr'/ plaintil't, Mst. lrarukh Sultan hcl'scll' appcarcd as I)W-2, who t'citcralcd thc avcrmcnts rnadc in thc plaint and has challcngcd thc validity o[ mutalion No.3477 clatcd 15.10.1989 on thc ground that the samc was illegal, as thcir mothcr had ncvcr alienated thc propcrty in qucstion in lavour ol' rcspondents No. I and 2. On thc othcr hand, thc lcarncd trial Court also rccorclcd statcmcnt o1' l)W- I Muhamrnad Shabbil SOK, who brought on rccord copy ol' mutalion No.13tl and.3477 as llx.l)W 1/1 and lix.l)W l12; DW-2 Musthaq Ahmad, Il.cgistry Moharrar, who broughl on rccord copy olllahi No.4, Jild No. 192, pagc No. l79 as lix.DW 2/l and pagcs No. 182 b ltt4 as lix.l)W 2/2; I)W-3 Mohalrar l'olicc Station City, who ploduccd copy ol' lrll{ No.3tl7 datcd 13.08.2012 as llx.DW 3/l;Col.(l{crd) Muhammad Mohsin, attomcy of rcspondcnts No.1 and 2/dcl'cndanls appearcd as DW-4 and rccordcd a\

his statcrtcnt in support ol thc stancc ol thc rcspondcnts. 'l'hc lcamcd trial Coufl has also rccorclccl statcmcnt ol Major (ltctd) Iraisal Shah, 'l'hc lcarncd rcspondcnt No.3/dclcndanl as DW-5.

rrial Court allcr hcaring learncd counscl lor thc partics. clismissccl thc sr-rit r.'iclc juclgnrcnt and clccrcc clatccl 07.01.2015.

'l'hc said judgurcnt and dccrcc o1'

thc lcarncd lrial Court wcrc challengcd by pctitioncr, Mst. Iiarukh Sultan and respondcntidclcndant Major

(lt)liaisal Shah in thcir separatc Appcals bclbrc thc lcarncd Appcllatc Court, which wcrc subscquently disrnisscd vidc consolidatcd judgrncnt and dccrcc ciatccl 20.02.201[i. hcncc thcsc rcvision pctitions.

4.Argumcnts o1' thc Icarncd counscl lbr thc partics hcard and rccord pcruscd with thcir valuablc assistancc.

5 l)crusal ol' thc rccord rcvcals that onc Mst. Sulriya Ashral'wi1'c ol'Major (ttctd) Ashral'Ali Shah was mothcr ol' pctitioncr/pla inti I'1, who was orvncr in posscssion ol' thc propcrly irr cyr-rcstion, which was transl'crrcd in l-avour o1' rcspondcnts No. I and 2 vidc mutation No.3477 atteslcd on 15.10.19u9.

'l'hc pctitioncr challcngcd rhc validity of thc t

(r

mutation on thc ground that ncithcr lrcr mothcr Ms1' Surriya Ashral rcccivcd any salc considcralion nor any lnutalion was altcstcd by hcr in l'avour of rcsponclcnts No. I ancl 2.

'l'hc rcspondcnts dcnicd thc

contcntions ol' thc Pctitioner tn thcir writtcn statcnlcnt ancl in support o1' thcil' contcntions thcy rccorclcd thc statcmcnt ol'I)W-l SOI(, who brought on rccord copy of impugncd mutation 3477 lrx.DW 1/l (l']art I)atwar) undcr objcction lrom olhcr sidc. In his cross- cxamination hc clcarly admittcd that thc said clocumcnt docs not bcar thc signaturc or thurnb inrprcssion o1'Mst. Surriya Ashral, vcnclor and thc witncsscs. Ilrc rc spor-r cl c ts ln sUppoft ol thc ir t'r

stancc rccordccl thc statcmcnt ol'I)W-4, thcir spccial attorncy. In his cross-examination, I)W-4 has adrnittcd that Ilx.DW 4/1, spccial powcr olallomcy has not bccn attcstcd by any witncss nor it has bccn rcgistcrcd in thc llcgistrar Olficc. llc also admittcd that thc sanrc has bccn rvrittcn on a plain papcr. I lc also aclr-rittcd tha[ hc has got no rclationsl-rip u,ith lcsponclcnts No.1 ancl 2 and thcy arc only his liicnds Ilc has statccl that thc salc lransaction was slruck bctwccn thc partics lbr a sum ol' Its.1,000,000/-, i

howcvcr, hc has not produccd any rcccipt o1'thc said amount. I Ic has also admitted that hc has no knowlcdgc rcgarcling thc mode ol paymcnt 1cl Mst' Surriya Ashrat, vcndor by rcspondcnts No'1 and 2' llowcvcr, lic statcd that rcspondcnts No.l and 2 inli>nrcd hirn that paymcnt has bccn madc to Mst' Surriya Ashral'through onc o1'thcir liicnd. Ilc has also stalcd that hc could not say whcthcr rcspondcnls No. I and 2 havc f ilcd any suit lor posscssion of the suil housc against fie pctitioncr. I Iowcvcr, scll statcd that at the timc olpurchase ol'disputed housc, posscssion was givct-t to thctn and thcy havc also appointccl a chowkidar. I lc has clcarly statcd that hc is no1 awarc whcthcr rcspondcnts No.l and 2 has produccd any wilncss or chowkidar in Court rcgarding thc said posscssion. I lc has admittcd it corrcct that posscssion o1' thc suit housc is with dclcndant No.3, who is pctitioncr in CI{ No.l45- n /20lU ancl brolhcr ol' l.rlcscnt pctitioncr, Mst.

liarul<l'r Sultan. llc showcd his ignolancc that whcthcr said Msl.Suriya Ashraf dicd in thc suit housc and hcr'janaz.a'was also brought out from thc said housc. I Ic also admillcci that hc was not thc t\

witncss of thc mutation nor he was prcscnl at thc rirnc ol' attcstation of mutation, I Ic has also stalcd that it is not in his knowlcdgc as to who had entercd thc mutation.

(). I)W-5, pctitioncr ol'CI{ No l45-A/201 tt appcalcd ancl statod that thc disputccl propct'ty wits purchasccl by his parcnls in thc ycar 19i13 and in this rcgard hc rclcrrcd to copy of mulation No'1366 ah'cady cxhibitcd, which was attcstcd in lavour ol Mst. Surriya Ashral'. I lc has also brought on rccord utility bills ol'thc housc in question rcgarding gas, clcctlicity, t)'l Cll, as tix.l)W 5/l consistirrg r"rpon 36 lcavcs. llc has clcnicd thc lactunt ol atlcsIation of mulation No.3477. ln cross-cxamination, hc admittcd that thc properly in qucstion was carlicr owncrship ol hcr mothcr and aftcr hcr dcath thc samc was dcvolvcd upon him and his two sistcl's.

I lc rcrnaincd in usc and posscssion o1'thc said housc.

I lc also clcarly dcnicd thc tlansaction in l'avour o[' rcspondcnts No. 1 and 2 on bchall' o t' hcr mothcr through thc impugncd mutation. I Ic has also admittcd i1 correct that the disputcd housc is thc.joint owncrship ol' pctitioncrs.

I

7.Pcrusal of cntirc rccord and cvidcnce availablc would show that thc rcspondenls arc rclying upon mutation No'3477 altcstcd on l5.l0.l9tl9 (llx.l)W l/1). It is worth 1o note that only I)art Patwar ol' thc said tnutation has bccn ploclircccl which clocs not bcar thc siguaturc and thr.ulb imprcssion ol'thc vondor, attcsting witncsscs as wcll as ordcr of thc I{cvcnue Officcr. In such circumslanccs, thc pcrsonal appcarance of thc rcspondcnts No.1 and 2 was vcry csscntial bclore thc (lor-rrt to rccord thcir slatemcnt in support ol'lix.l)W I ll . It is also worth to mcntion that rcspondcnts No. I and 2 could not producc thc l)atwari Ilalqa, who cntcrcd thc said mutalion, nor ILoznamcha Waqihati, as wcll as Girdawar Circlc, who cxamincd thc impugncd mulalion and Revcnuc Officcr, who attcstcd it. Apart liorn abovc, I)W-4, attorncy of thc rcspondents whcn appcarccl bclirrc thc (lourt has adn.rittcd posscssior-r ol'thc rcsponclcnt No.3, rvho is rcal brolhcr o1'thc prcscnt pctitioncr/plaintil l. l)W-4 sl.atcd that onc of attesting witncss ol llx.I)W 1/l was Noor Muhammad and thc othcr witncss was thc husband of thc vcndor, howcvcr, in this rcspcct, hc t

could not producc any evidcnce. llvcn hc couid not dcny thc suggeslion of othcr side thal Mst' Surriya Ashlaf allcgcd vendor had dicd in thc said housc and l.rcr 'janaza' was brought out lor burial h'om thc said housc. llc has also aclmittcd that paymcnt has not bccn tnadc in his prcscncc as wcll as hc is not thc witr-rcss of said mutation not hc was prcscnt at thc timc ol attcstation thcrcof. I Ic has also clcarly statcd thal lix.l)W 4/l powcr of attorney was not attcslcd by thc witnesscs. 'l'his Court whilc cvalualing thc cntirc cvidcnco on rccord safcly rcachcd at thc conclusion that ncithcr rcspondcnts coulcl cstablish through cogcnl, rcliablc and conljdcncc inspiring cvidcncc thc attcstation of mutation in thcir favour nor thc paymcnt o1' salc consideralion to thc vcndor, Mst. Surriya Ashral and adrnittcdly thcy arc also not in posscssion ol'thc suit housc, thcrclbrc, thcy could not gct any bcncfit ol- thc impugncd rnLrtation. As by norv it is wcll scttlccl that nrLrtation is not a titlc clccd, ncithcr it conl'crs any titlc uor can it takc away any right. I{cliancc is placed on 1983 I'LD SC 53. 2005 scMR 18s9. 2007 s cMR 635. 2016 SCMR l417 and 2017 scMlt 679.

t

tl

8.In the present case it was bounden duty of the respondents/defendants to establish through evidence the payment of sale consideration to the vendor in terms of section 54 of Transfer of I)roperty Act, 1882. IIowcver, they have miserably failed to prove and cstablish the satne through cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring eviclence. Thus, the requirement of section 54 of 'l'.P Act has also not been fulfilled in the present case. Section 54 of T.P Act provides essential ingredients for constitution of a valid sale trans;lction, according to which there must be [i) a valid sale agreement; [ii] parties to sale transaction; [iiiJ sale consideration fixed and paid;

and [iv) subject-matter of sale transaction. The main thrust and focus in the aforementioned definition of sale is given to the price, which generally called as "sale consideration". Il this important and esscntial element is missing in a sale transaction, then the sale would not complete. In this regard, wisdom is drawn from case law lrlled "Ali Muhammad uncl others Vs.

Chie./' Settlemenl & Rehtbilitution Commissioner t

tund others" (1984 SCMR 94)' The principle enunciated in the aforementioned iudgment was subscquently followed by the Apex Court in case lillerl "Muhtr d Sgtli Vs. Muh ummutl Rttm7.un und I olhers" (2002 SCMR 1.SZl), whercin, it has been obscrvcd that:

"The "sule" is de/inecl in section 54 oJ'the Trtnsfer o/' I'roPertY Act, 1882 ss under:-- " 54 'Sale de;fi ned.'---S uch tronsfer, in lhe cose o/'ownershiP in exchtnge /'or u Price Puid or promised lo purt Puid Parl promisel.

Sule hotv mule.--Such transJer, in lhc cuse o/'tongihle imnrovttble propcrtt, o/ lhe vulue rt one hun red rupees utttl upwurls, or itt lht t'ttsc o,f r(h'r.\iott 0r olher intungihle lhing, cutt he mude only by u registererl inslrument, In, the cuse o.l' tongible immovthle property, of n vtrlueless than one hundred rupees, such truns/br mqt 6u mode either by a registered inslrumenl or hy deliver)t o./ lhe p ro pe rl.t,.

l)eliver.l' ol langihle imnruvuble prlpert.l' lukes pluc'c wltcrt tha sallar plrces the buIsr, or suc'lr p(rson arJ ha lirtrts, itt possession of lhe propertl-. Conlrucl tf wle.--tl contruct Jbr th e sule oJ immovuhle property is u cunlrucl tltut rt sule of such prlpert! shall luke place on terms of sellled belween lhe pu rli es.

t

ll

It does not, o.f itse( creule unY interest, in or churge otr such properly. " The sule tf imnovuhle PruqertJ) meuns trtnslbr of tn rtx'nershiq otr u 1tfice to he ptitl or promised to he Puitl with deliverY tt/ 'l-he mere c-teculion Jnssession.

ol sule-deed tagislcre i)r unregistererl without prott/ tt./ pu),mant of Prit'e und eliverY o/ possessirttt is ttot enouglt lo puss the tilte oJ the ProPertl'und tlrus i/ the sute is nol, in conlruvention o/'seclion 54 ttf the /ct, woukl he u stle in the eYes o/ luw.

Re/erence muY he mude lrt /li Muhummul and ollrers v' Chief Seltlement utrtl Rehubilittttion Commissioner und others (1984 scMR 94)."

9 No doubt, thc suit u,as ll lccl altcr twcnty ycars of thc attcslation ol- mutatiot't, howcvcr, I)W-4 Attorncy of thc rcspondcnts No.l and 2 has clcarly admittcd thc posscssion ol the suit plopcrty with thc rcspondcnt No.3, who is rcal brothcr ol thc pctitioncr'. Morcovcr, rcspondcnt No.3 whcn appcarcd as l)W-5 hc broLrglrt titr rccot'cl Lrtility bills ol' thc sub.lcct hoLrsc rcgarding gas, clcctricity, P'l'Cl, as (lix I)W 5ll) 36 shccls, which lully supporls thc posscssion ol tl.ro pctilioncr ovcr thc suil housc.

'l'hcrclbrc, rcpetition ol'cvcry wrong cntry ln thc subscclucnt 'jcrmabancli ' woLrld givc thcm licsh causc l

of action. 'l'hus, in view ol abovc, thc suit of the pclitioncr is hcld to be filed within the period of

Iimitarion. ILcliancc in this rcgard is placcd on case titlcd'Khan Muhammutl Vs' Mst' Khutoon Rihi trnd others' (2017 SCMR 1476),'Younas Khan und

others Vs, DOR&E Peshawar and others' (2017 CLC Note 63) and '(lmar Fatooq and others Vs' Hamirt Ali and others'(2018 CLC 254)'

10.Ilcncc, in vicw olthc abovc stated facts, circumstanccs and discussions madc thcrcupon, this Court rcachcd at thc conclusion, that thc concurrcnt lindings of lacts rcndered by both the learned lower Courls below arc illegal and not bascd upon comect appreciation of tho cvidcncc and matcrial available on rccord of thc casc and thc law applicablc thercto, which nceds intcrl'crcncc by this Court in its rcvisional jurisdiction undcr seclion ] l5 o1' Cl'C.

Ilcncc, thc rcvision petitions are allowcd and suit ol thc pclilioncr, Mst. Irarukh Sultan is dccrccd in her lavour, as prayed for. 'l'hc connected revision pclition No.l45-Ai20ltl, stands disposcd ol.

Dt.26.t 1.2018.

,r*/4 .l UD(;E

/\l.SNlrcllr/" (.\/l) \Ir ,/ttnk\'.\\rl ,\Iul utnkkl )tItqttt,.\lfutIt