Pakistan Case Law
1984 SCMR 63

LUQMAN AND OTHERS vs GUL MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1984 SCMR 63
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 117 of 1982 R. S. A. No, 244 of 1981
Date1982-03-28
Judge(s)Nasim Hasan Shah and M. S. H. Quraishi
Authored byM. S. H. Quraishi
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter originated as a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the heirs of Pira, challenging the inheritance mutation of 1936 and an earlier land allotment mutation from 1923, following ejectment proceedings initiated against them by a vendee, Gul Muhammad. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could challenge land mutations dating back several decades, particularly after the predecessor-in-interest had unsuccessfully exhausted appellate remedies regarding the disputed land in 1969. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had dismissed the suit. The Court held that the suit was barred by limitation, emphasizing that it was too late to challenge such old entries based on a mere assertion of lack of knowledge. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioners' failure to explain why the matter was not pursued further after the dismissal of the second revision by the Member, Board of Revenue, in 1969. The principle laid down is that stale claims regarding long-standing mutation entries cannot be reopened, especially when previous litigation regarding the same subject matter has reached finality.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can land mutation entries from several decades prior be challenged on the basis of lack of knowledge?
  • Does the failure to pursue further litigation after the dismissal of a revision petition bar subsequent suits regarding the same subject matter?
  • Is a suit challenging long-standing mutation entries maintainable when concurrent findings of lower courts establish it is barred by time?
limitationmutationinheritanceland allotmentstale claimconcurrent findingsejectment proceedings

ORDER

' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-According to the submissions of learned counsel, Gehna and his five sons, namely, Kamira, Rajba, Pira, Walia and Amira, had been allotted one square of land each in 1906 under "Shutar Pal" Scheme. As the Scheme was coming to an end, the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, directed, in 1923, that the land be re-allotted in a fresh scheme, in the result of which the earlier 'allotments Were cancelled, the land was resumed and the entire land was re-allotted in the name of Gehna only, by Mutation No, 134 dated 3-6-1923. Upon the death of Gehna in 1934; the mutation of inheritance was recorded on 31-4-1936 in favour of his aforesaid five sons, as well as two other sons, namely, Sadullah and Dalia? Who were from a different wife. On 25-9-1965 Sadullah sold 7 acres of land to Gul Muhammad and the necessary mutation was duly recorded the same day. Pira, one of the sons of aforesaid Gehna, challenged the sale by appeal, followed by revision and second revision, but failed throughout, the second revision having been dismissed in 1969. Pira did not agitate any further. He died in 1971. Gul Muhammad, the vendee, instituted in 1977, ejectment proceeding against the petitioners, who are the heirs of Pira, on the ground of default in payment of batai. The petitioners challenged the proceeding by a suit instituted on 28-2-1978 for a declaration and injunction. The suit was dismissed. So, was the petitioners' appeal. Their second appeal in the High Court also failed on 17-11-1981. They now seek leave to appeal.

2. What the petitioners are in fact agitating against is not only the mutation of inheritance recorded in 1936 but also Mutation No, 134 of 1923 whereby the entire land had been allotted in the name of Gehna alone. It is not only too late in the day to challenge these old entries on the bland assertion of lack of knowledge but the petitioners have also to explain why they did not further agitate the matter after the dismissal of the second revision of Pira by the Member, Board of Revenue, in 1969.

In the circumstance, the concurrent view taken by all the Courts below that the suit was barred by time is unassailable. The petition is dismissed.

Cited by 5 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.