IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Civil Appeal No. 396 of 2018 
(Against the order dated 19.01.2017 
passed by Lahore High Court Rawalpindi 
Bench in C.R. No.199 of 2008) 
 
 
Fazal Ellahi deceased through his legal heirs 
 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
Mst. Zainab Bi 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Syed Moazam Ali Rizvi, ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Syed Hamid Ali Shah Bokhari, ASC 
 
Mr. Tariq Aziz, AOR  
 
Date of hearing: 
24.09.2019 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J. Mst. Zainab Bi, 
respondent herein, had been non-suited by a learned Civil Judge, 
at Kahuta vide judgment and decree dated 17.5.2006; praying for a 
declaration, she disputed vires of mutation No.596 dated 
14.8.1970, purportedly entered in consequence of a sale effected 
by her father, Alif, incapacitated by paralysis, in favour of 
appellants’ predecessor-in-interest; alleging fraud, she prayed for 
consequential reliefs. A learned Additional District Judge vide 
judgment and decree dated 22.5.2008, reversed the findings 
returned by the learned Trial Court and decreed the suit, a 
decision subsequently affirmed by a learned Judge-in-Chambers of 
Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi, being assailed, 
by leave of the Court, on a variety of grounds, ranging from a duly 
Civil Appeal No. 396 of 2018 
 
2
mutated valid transaction, expiry of period of limitation as well as 
alleged knowledge of the sale, attributed to the respondent on the 
basis of a suit filed by her for possession through preemption qua 
the same chunk of land. Controverted by the respondent on the 
ground that there was no occasion for the revenue staff to enter 
the impugned mutation on a national holiday, that too in the 
absence of the vendor as well as two respectable persons to 
confirm his identity before completion of the process. The bottom 
line is that a vulnerable lady in a rural neighborhood was 
surreptitiously duped and that she recoursed the law at the first 
available opportunity.  
2. 
 
Heard. Record Perused. 
3. 
 
Even if entry of mutation on 14th of August, a national 
holiday, is unsuspectingly ignored, there are many other intriguing 
aspects, surrounding the controversy that cannot be possibly 
overlooked. It is admitted, at all hands, that Alif, respondent’s 
predecessor-in-interest was a physically incapacitated person and 
as such he neither attended the proceedings nor anyone was 
deputed to confirm/verify his assent. There is no entry in the 
Roznamcha as contemplated by Section 42 of the West Pakistan 
Land Revenue Act, 1967 (XVII of 1967), inter alia, providing  
identification 
by 
two 
respectable 
persons 
to 
confirm 
the 
transaction; non compliance with the procedure, though directory, 
nonetheless, puts us on caution. With a suspect entry, entire 
transaction is structured upon a self serving statement pointed 
upon the legitimate proprietary rights of a hapless female in a rural 
neighbourhood. It is by now well settled that a mutation by itself 
does not create title unless demonstrated to be backed by a valid 
transaction. A sale without a vendor or by his duly authorized 
attorney/agent is a farce. Appellants’ emphatic stress on the period 
of limitation is beside the mark inasmuch as their reference to the 
institution of a suit for possession through preemption by no other 
than 
the 
respondent 
herself 
is 
a 
far 
cry 
as 
well,  
as nothing has been placed on the record throughout the 
proceedings before the Courts below to even obliquely suggest that 
the respondent ever instituted any suit for the same piece of land. 
Civil Appeal No. 396 of 2018 
 
3
Documents placed, for the first time before this Court, are also 
devoid of relevant details. Even otherwise having found the 
impugned transaction with the strappings of deceit, we are not 
impressed by the argument. Fraud vitiates most solemn 
proceedings and thus period of limitation would not embargo a 
justiciable claim directed against fraud. View taken by the 
Appellate Court, affirmed by the High Court, being well within the 
remit of law, calls for no interference. Appeal is dismissed. 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
24.09.2019 
Not approved for reporting.  
Ghulam Raza/-  
 
