Manzoor Hussain and another v Khalid Aziz and others, Civil Appeal 42-K of 2016 (Supreme Court ‘abandons caution’ and summons revenue records)

Date of hearing: 07.09.2018
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan (Appellate Jurisdiction).
Judges Present: Mr. Justice Mushir Alam, Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah.
Name: Civil Appeal No.42-K of 2016 (Manzoor Hussain and another v. Khalid Aziz and others)

This case was an appeal against a judgement of the Honourable High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad, which decided on a dispute over land transfer.

The land in question was an evacuee land, granted to Shah Azizullah Abbasi and his wife Mst. Tayyeba Khatoon against their claim. He died on 30.05.1992 and was survived by his widow Mst. Tayyeba Khatoon, respondent No. 1 (son) and respondent No. 2 (daughter). On 17.09.2002, Mst. Tayyeba Khatoon also died. To seek transfer of the land in the revenue record in their names, respondents No. 1 & 2 approached the Mukhtiarkar but were told that their parents had already sold the property to respondents No. 3 and 4 who thereafter sold the property to the appellants.

This led respondents No. 1 and 2 to file a suit against the appellants, which went all the way till the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad. The High Court found in favour of the respondents as the evidence provided by the appellants was deemed insufficient to corroborate the alleged sale of land.

Honourable Justice Faisal Arab, who wrote the judgement for the Court, accepted the counsel for the respondents’ argument that the burden to prove that the land had been sold to them by respondents No. 3 and 4 was on the appellants.

Upon analysing the evidence, the Supreme Court decided to ‘abandon caution’ and summoned the relevant revenue records, which was produced during the proceedings. Upon analysing the revenue books, it became evident that the purported sale of land had been made through oral statements whose witnesses were not from among the relatives of the parents of respondents No. 1 and 2.

Moreover the relevant page of the revenue records showed clear signs of tampering, as the page number’s size and ink were clearly different from the rest of the book and that the book spine had been opened and successively taped. This was considered by the Supreme Court as clear evidence of the fact that the page in question had been inserted at a later stage in the book, ‘with the intention to show a back dated transaction in order to defeat the plea of limitation in case the matter is taken to Court’.

Based on all this, Honourable Justice Faisal Arab dismissed the present appeal and praised the well-reasoned judgement of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, who had found in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2.

The Court also ordered a copy of the judgement to be sent to the concerned Member of the Board of Revenue, ‘so that appropriate disciplinary action shall be taken against such officials of the revenue department who have manipulated the relevant revenue record’. The Honourable Justice also mentioned that in case any of them has already retired, a criminal action may be initiated against them.