MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others vs KHUDA BAKHSH
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit concerning agricultural land, which was dismissed by the trial court and whose decrees were successively maintained by the Additional District Judge in first appeal and the High Court in second appeal. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could successfully challenge longstanding revenue record entries dating back to 1907 on the basis of alleged fraud and misrepresentation when the original record had been destroyed. The Supreme Court held that the petition must be dismissed, reasoning that a presumption of truth is attached to revenue records, which becomes significantly strengthened when entries remain unchallenged for over half a century. The key principle laid down is that the heavy onus to rebut the strong presumption of truth attached to long-standing revenue entries rests upon the party alleging fraud, and mere assertions without substantiating evidence are insufficient to dislodge such entries.
- Whether a presumption of truth is attached to revenue record entries that remain unchallenged for more than half a century?
- How is the onus discharged when challenging long-standing revenue entries on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation?
- Does the destruction of the original revenue record automatically invalidate entries maintained consistently over decades?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit brought by the petitioners which was dismissed by the trial Court. The decree of the trial Court was maintained by the Additional District Judge in first appeal and by the High Court in the second appeal.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to agricultural land. In the revenue record, till 1907, the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners were shown to be the owners of the land in dispute.
However in that year the entries in the revenue record were changed and instead Ahmad Din, predecessor-ininterest of the respondent, was mentioned as the owner thereof. The case of the petitioners was that the alterations in the revenue record were based on fraud and misrepresentation and as such they were not bound by them.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that the original revenue record has since been destroyed. It cannot therefore be said why the entries in the revenue record were altered. However that may be, it has not been disputed that since 1907 the respondent or his predecessor-in-interest have been consistently shown as the owners of the land in dispute. There is also no evidence that they had in the intervening period paid any batai to the petitioners. A presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record. This presumption gets further strengthened when the entries therein remain unchallenged for more than half a century. It was for the petitioners to rebut this presumption. They took the plea of fraud and misrepresentation but were unable to substantiate it.
We would therefore dismiss this petition.
Cited by 5 cases
- Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad and 2 others vs Wadero Lal Bux 2021 CLC 1609
- Haji Wajdad vs Provincial Government through Secretary Board of Revenue, Government of Balochistan, Quetta, etc 2021 P SC 1132, 2020 SCMR 2046, 2020 SCP 190
- Mst. SUGHRABHAI Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary 2017 CLCN 208
- SARDAR KHAN vs SHAH NAWAZ and others 2009 YLR 1516
- H. SAMANDAR and others vs SAHIB HAQ and others 2004 PLD Peshawar 241