Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)-------S. 39---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120---Mutation---Proof ofownership---Scope---Correctness of mutation---Onus to prove---Presumption of truth isattached with Revenue Record but such presumption is always rebuttable---Mutationitself does not confer or extinguish any right or title and if the mutation on the basis ofwhich right in the property is claimed, is disputed, the onus of proving the correctnessof mutation and genuineness of the transaction contained therein would be on the partyclaiming right on the basis of such mutation---Mutations are entered and sanctioned tokeep the Revenue Record in order which do not, as such, create right or title in theproperty---Entries in Revenue Record based on wrong mutation do not have any legaleffect on the title of property.(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Arts. 117, 120 & 127---Transaction on behalf of Pardahnashin lady---Good faith oftransaction---Onus to prove---If genuineness of a transaction entered on behalf of aPardahnashin lady is disputed by the lady, heavy onus would lie on the person whoasserts right through it, to prove the good faith and genuineness as envisaged in Art. 127of Qanun e-Shahadat, 1984---Genuineness of transaction of disposition by Pardahnashinladies and also by illiterate and ignorant women, must be established by the person whoclaims its genuineness or who is to be benefited by such transaction through reliable,cogent and convincing evidence.(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.117 & 120---Constitution of Pakistan(1973), Art.185 (3)---Declaration of title---Inherited property---Gift by Pardahnashinlady---Onus to prove---Plaintiffs being sisters of defendant disputed mutation of giftattested in favour of defendant on the ground of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation--Trial Court decreed the suit and judgment and decree passed by Trial Court weremaintained by Appellate Court and High Court---Validity---Express or oralrelinquishment of right of a female heir in inherited property in favour of male heir,through gift or any other legal device, takes effect in normal circumstances---If theexistence of such transaction was denied and disputed by the female heir, a presumptionwould be raised that the transaction was not genuine and to prove that it was entered ingood faith and was a genuine transaction, onus would be on the person who was claimingits genuineness---If such onus was not discharged satisfactorily, the document ofrelinquishment of rights of female heir in the property in favour of a male heir, wouldnot, ipso facto, confer title adverse to the interest of female heir--Defendant was not onlyunder the legal obligation to protect the right of his sisters in the suit property rather itwas also his moral duty to accept their claim and deliver the possession of the land oftheir share to them voluntarily---Supreme Court did not find any legal defect or infirmityof misreading or non-reading of evidence by High Court in affirming the concurrentfindings of fact of two Courts below---Leave to appeal was refused.(d) Gift-------Fraud---Gift transaction based upon fraud---Limitation, computation of---In cases offraud, limitation would start from the date of knowledge and not from the date of fraud.(e) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Declaration of title---Inherited property---Delay in claiming share in inheritedproperty---Effect---Mere delay in claiming share in inherited property would not defeatthe right of a person in inheritance and if he is non-suited on such technical ground, hisright of inheritance would be defeated.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.