Mst. SAKEENA and others vs Mst. AMEERAN MAI and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision in limine. The core legal question concerns the validity of a mutation of Tamleek through which the predecessor-in-interest allegedly transferred disputed State land to his son, to the exclusion of his daughters. The trial court decreed the respondents' declaratory suit, declaring the mutation illegal and void, a decision subsequently affirmed by the District Judge and the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below were unexceptionable, noting that the petitioner failed to produce any foundational order for the mutation and that the parties remained co-sharers where the petitioner had been paying a share of crops to the female heirs. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
- Whether a mutation of Tamleek without a foundational order is valid against the legal rights of co-heirs?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding the illegality of a mutation be interfered with in civil revision?
- Are daughters entitled to inherit their share from the property of their predecessor-in-interest notwithstanding an unregistered or unverified transfer?
ORDER
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 17-8-1999, whereby Civil Revision No,451-D of 1999 filed by the petitioner was dismissed in liming by the learned Single Judge, Lahore High Court, Multan Bench.
2. The facts briefly are that Imam Bakhsh predecessor-in-interest of the parties was an allottee of State land under a permanent scheme. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a declaratory suit being daughters of the predecessor-in-interest taking exception to the Mutation No,20 sanctioned on 3rd of September, 1970 showing the transfer of the disputed land by the predecessor in favour of his son Allah Bakhsh. This suit was instituted on 11-6-1988.
3. The petitioner/defendant contested the suit and out of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. The learned Civil Judge, Lodhran after scanning the entire evidence brought on record held thedisputed mutation of Tamleek and order of the District Collector as illegal, void and decreed the suit of the respondents vide judgment, dated 19-10-1996.
4. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge, Lodhran through his judgment, dated 19th July, 1999. Civil Revision filed by the petitioner also met the same fate and was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench through the impugned judgment, dated 17-8-1999. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. We have noticed that the petitioner failed to bring any order on record on the basis of which the mutation was entered. It is also reflected from the documents appended with this petition that the parties are co-sharer and the petitioner was paying share of crops to the ladies. He in an illegal manner secured the disputed mutation simply to oust his own sisters from the inheritance which they are entitled under the law. The two Courts below after scanning the entire evidence brought on record decreed the suit of the respondents.
The learned Single Judge maintained the determination by dismissing the Civil Revision of the petitioner in limine.
6. Resultantly, for what has been stated, the present petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused.