Ghulam Fareed (deceased) through his L.Rs., etc vs Daulan Bibi
This matter arises from a petition filed against concurrent findings of three lower forums wherein a suit challenging a sale mutation was decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The core legal questions concerned the validity of a sale mutation where the thumb impression of the purported vendor was denied and scientifically disproven through a Finger Print Bureau report, as well as the determination of the issue of limitation regarding the knowledge of the sale. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the beneficiary of the sale failed to discharge the burden of proof, whereas the respondent conclusively established through forensic evidence that the thumb impression on the mutation was not hers, and the petitioners failed to prove prior knowledge to substantiate their plea of limitation. The Court affirmed the concurrent judgments, dismissed the petition with costs throughout, imposed compensatory costs for retaining illegal possession, and directed the immediate delivery of possession of the subject land to the respondent.
- Does the burden to establish a purported sale mutation lie upon its beneficiary?
- Is a Finger Print Bureau report sufficient to disprove a thumb impression on a sale mutation?
- Where the defendant raises the plea of limitation regarding knowledge of a sale, upon whom does the onus to prove prior knowledge lie?
- Can the Supreme Court impose compensatory costs for retaining illegal possession after concurrent findings against a petitioner?
ORDER
Qazi Faez Isa, CJ. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners' predecessor had purchased land through sale mutation, No.727, attested on 13 June 1994. However, the respondent filed a suit on 6 November 2008, which was hopelessly time barred. He further states that the respondent had simply denied her thumb impression on the said mutation and that the report of the Finger Print Bureau, Punjab is in itself not sufficient for disproving that the sale mutation bore her thumb impression.
2. The suit filed by the respondent was decreed on 16 October 2014 against which the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on 29 October 2016. Thereafter, the petitioners invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court but the Civil Revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 25 November 2022. Fifteen years have passed since the suit was filed by the respondent, and at three different forums she succeeded and the petitioners lost. On our query we are told that the possession of the subject land remains with the petitioners. The petitioners have disregarded all three decisions of the courts and continue to retain the illegal possession of the land.
3. The burden to establish the purported sale lay upon the beneficiary of the sale but this was not discharged. The 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 Finger Print Bureau, Punjab which submitted a comprehensive report and the witness from Finger Print Bureau was also produced as a witness (PW-3). It was conclusively established that the thumb impression on the sale mutation was not hers.
4. The contention with regard to the belated filing of the suit, the respondent had stated in the plaint that she had learnt of the purported sale mutation three months earlier. We enquired from the learned counsel whether any evidence was produced to show that the respondent-plaintiff was aware about the sale mutation much before then, and we were not referred to anything. Issue No.4 pertained to limitation and the learned Judge had correctly noted that the onus to prove it lay upon the defendant. In attending to the issue of limitation the learned Judge determined that the defendant had not been able to establish prior knowledge.
5. All three courts had correctly decided the matter in accordance with the law and the two points urged by the learned counsel are not sustainable either in fact or in law. The courts had dealt charitably with the defendant-petitioners by not imposing costs, let alone substantial costs which in our opinion were merited. This error needs correction and we dismiss this petition with costs throughout. And, as the petitioners have remained in illegal possession of the said land we also impose compensatory cost in the sum of one hundred thousand rupees. The petitioners are further directed to immediately hand over the subject land to the respondent, and if they fail to do so the concerned revenue officer/official shall ensure that its possession is delivered to the respondent immediately. Copy of the order passed today be sent to the concerned revenue authority for information and compliance and copy be sent to the respondent for information.
Cited by 3 cases
- Abdul Ghani Versus Muhammad Sharif 2026 YLR 1540
- Salamat Ali vs Sabohi Naz 2025 LHC 3273
- SALAMAT ALI Versus SABOHI NAZ 2026 PLD 601