Abdul Majeed Vs Miskeen etc

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT

ABBOTTABAD BENCH

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

C.R No.371-Al2010.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing 12.11.2018.

Petitioner (Abdul Majeed) by: Malik Muhammad Asif, Advocate.

Respondents (Miskeen & others) by: Raja Badi-uz- Zaman, Advocate.

SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIOUE SHAH, J.- ThE

petitioners through the instant civil revision have called into question the validity and legality of judgments and decrees of both the Courts below whereby their suit as well as appeal was dismissed.

2.Brief facts of the case as averred in the petition are that the petitioners were owner in possession of the property bearing Khasra No' 3158 measuring 19 Kanals 9 Marlas situated al Mavza Garhi Habibullah' Tehsil Balakot and they have challenged the registered deed No. 59 and subsequent mutation No' 207 attested on

07.03.1948 and mutation No' 473 attested on23'07 '1949 etc. being illegal, fraudulent, result of collusion and

entered against the interests of the petitioners.

Respondents were summoned by the leamed trial court who appeared and submitted written statement. Subsequently, after framing issues arising out from the pleadings of the parties, evidence of the parties was recorded. The leamed trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.2009 dismissed the suit and appeal against the same also failed, hence this revision petition.

3.Arguments heard and record perused.

4.Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioners have challenged the validity ofregistered deed No. 59 dated 19.04.1946 (Ex PW-5/l) and subsequent mutations attested on the strength of that very deed being against their rights and interest. It is also worth mentioning that the petitioner has impugned the validity of the said deed through instant suit orr25.09.2002, i.e. after 56 long years on the ground that they have not alienated the property in question in favour of respondents/defendants' However, it is evident from the statement of PW-6 that he attained the age of majority in the year 1954 and thus under the law, petitioners were required to challenge the validity of said transaction within a period of three years, after attaining majority. Petitioner/plaintiff No' 2 appeated t

as PW-6 in support of his claim, however, it is worth to

note that said PW has not specifically challenged registered deed No. 59 dated 19.04.1946 (Ex pW_5/1), as well as subsequent mutations entered on the basis of said registered deed. PW-6 has also admitted possession of the respondents/defendants over the property in question by stating that:-

J1"j oJ.,- 4,J,cJi. .9lbl 4l a1 r:.,.1s 41" jLI t ull JJI crUK" f ,_rlc .r^:.." sr-." 3l5g -ug *>.J, er_;a,6 J.:l.ql

.rl jJi.lj,5.r;rf.r+r 2_ o:* af+ r:*aJJ + ay I .rl.,rst l*5dr/rlJ te tssss e(j 2001 "-+lo5r,:1, 14 Aso u+ [ Admittedly the entries in favour of the respondents remained unchallenged for more than 56 long years and the petitioners have failed to bring on record any cogent and conhdence inspiring evidence in support of their stance. On the other hand, there are long standing entries ofrevenue record in favour ofthe respondents which not only carry the presumption of truth but remained unchallenged for sufficient long time. Thus the petitioners were rightly non suited by both the courts below. In this respect reliance is placed on "Muhammad Hussain Vs.

Khuda Bukash (1989 SCMR 1563), Sameen Khan vs.

Haji Mir Azad etc. (PLJ 2002 Peshawar B4), Shoaib-ur- Rehman vs. Abdul Hadi & others (2016 MLD 1950), Haji Malik Zakim Khan vs. Mera band Khan (deceased) through Legal Heirs and others (2016 MLD lgig)".

Moreover, the concurrent findings of the leamed Courts below are not open to any interference by this court, as no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error could be pointed out which had resulted in miscarriage of justice.

5.Keeping in view the above facts and

circumstances of the case, the petitioners suit was badly time barred thus on question of limitation as well as on merits, the present petition stands dismissed.

ANNOUNCED

J D

Tufail/*