LHC rejects property claim based on mutation

. LHC rejects property claim based on mutation The Lahore High Court (LHC) has upheld concurrent judgments recognising the inheritance claim of a grandson of a deceased landowner, ruling that a revenue mutation alone cannot establish ownership where the underlying gift transaction is disputed and that an alleged divorce must be proved through credible and legally admissible evidence. Justice Hassan Nawaz Makhdoom dismissed a civil revision petition challenging judgments of the Civil Judge, Sargodha, and the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, which had recognised the inheritance rights of the plaintiff's family branch. The court held that the alleged gift of 346 kanals of land to the deceased landowner's son had not been established through independent and satisfactory evidence, while the alleged divorce of the plaintiff's grandmother decades before the landowner's death also remained unproved. The dispute concerned the estate of Dost Muhammad, who died on December 24, 1969. He had two wives, Sahib Khatoon and Jannat Khatoon. Sahib Khatoon was the mother of Salah Khatoon, while Jannat Khatoon was the mother of Malik Ali Akbar. The plaintiff, Malik Janbaz Khan, claimed inheritance through his maternal grandmother, Salah Khatoon, while the petitioners were the successors of Ali Akbar. The central issue was whether Sahib Khatoon's branch had lawfully been excluded from inheritance on the basis of an alleged divorce and a gift of property said to have been made by Dost Muhammad in favour of his son. Janbaz had instituted the suit in 1999, challenging several revenue mutations through which, according to his claim, his family branch had been deprived of its lawful share in the estate. He sought a declaration that the disputed entries were illegal and ineffective against his inheritance rights. The defendants maintained that Dost Muhammad had gifted 346 kanals of land in Chak No. 29/N.B., Sargodha, to Ali Akbar through Mutation No. 204 dated February 6, 1962, and that the property therefore did not form part of the deceased's estate when he died. They also contended that Sahib Khatoon had been divorced in 1921 and was consequently not entitled to inherit from Dost Muhammad. Rejecting the challenge to the lower courts' findings, Justice Makhdoom observed that a mutation was essentially a fiscal entry maintained for revenue purposes and did not, by itself, create, confer or extinguish title to property. The court noted that the defendants had failed to produce any witness to the original gift transaction or independent evidence establishing that the gift had actually been made.