GHULAM HAIDER and others vs WALI MUHAMMAD and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision and confirmed the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' suit for declaration and possession regarding a property mutation. The core legal question concerned whether the suit challenging a property mutation executed several decades prior was maintainable and within time, and whether the mutation was collusive or without consideration. The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1908, having been filed nineteen years after the mutation, and that the petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of regularity attached to the revenue records where the respondents remained in continuous possession. The court laid down the principle that a suit for possession and declaration challenging a mutation is subject to the twelve-year limitation period, and revenue entries carrying a presumption of regularity cannot be set aside without credible rebutting material, particularly when the original vendor survived for years without challenging them.
- What is the period of limitation for filing a suit for declaration and possession challenging a property mutation?
- Whether a presumption of regularity is attached to entries in the revenue record?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding limitation and merits be interfered with without credible rebutting material?
- Article 142, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Leave to appeal sought against the judgment, dated 20-11-2000 (Civil Revision No,109-D of 1977) passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dismissing petitioners' civil revision and thereby confirming the concurrent judgments and decrees of the trial Court (dated 22-11-1974) and that of the first Court of appeal (dated 5-4-1977) in terms of which petitioners/plaintiffs suit for declaration was dismissed.
2. Through the said suit the petitioners had impugned Mutation No,9, dated 28-6-1953 evidencing the sale of the suit property by Ali Ahmad (petitioners' predecessors-in-interest) in favour of Wali Muhammad (predecessors-in-interest of the respondents). It was alleged that the mutation was collusive, that there was no sale and no consideration passed to the respondents/ defendants.
3. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit as time-barred and even.On merits it was held that there was nothing on record to prove that there was no sale. This finding was affirmed by the Court of appeal and the learned High Court in revision.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have gone through the impugned judgment as also the evidence led during the trial.
5. The impugned mutation is dated 28-6-1953 while the suit was filed in the year 1972 i.e, after 19 years. It is in evidence that the mutation was duly reflected in the Revenue Record and the respondents/ defendants were in possession ever since the mutation and when the suit was filed.
Petitioners also prayed for possession. In terms of Article 142 of the Limitation Act the period of limitation for filing such a suit is 12 years. That being so, the suit was hopelessly time-barred and the findings on this issue are unexceptionable.
5-A. There is nothing in evidence to indicate that the impugned mutation was collusive or fictitious.
Admittedly the predecessors-ininterest of the petitioners were alive 6/7 years after the mutation and he never challenged the said mutation or the entries made in the Revenue Record. A presumption of regulatory is attached to these entries and in absence of any credible material to rebut the said presumption the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit.
6. For the afore-referred reasons we do not find any merit in this petition to interfere with the concurrent judgment and decrees. The petition is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.
Leave to appeal refused.
Cited by 8 cases
- Pir SHAH ABDUL HAQ (deceased) Versus MUHAMMAD IRFAN 2026 SCMR 1019
- ASLIYAT KHAN Versus Mst. SAEEDA 2026 CLC 424
- Allah Ditta through L.Rs. and another vs Mst. Qudrat Bibi through L.Rs. and 2 2024 YLR 615
- GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus GHULAM HASSAN 2023 CLC 2082
- Dil Araam and another vs Sherzada and 6 others 2022 YLR 605
- Arbab MUHAMMAD KABIR KHAN Versus Arbab ABDUR REHMAN 2020 YLR 2645
- Mst. PHUL BIBI Versus GHAZAN SHAH 2017 CLCN 39
- Haji MUHAMMAD JAN vs Mst. BIBI NOSHA And Others 2011 YLR 82