IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 42-K OF 2016 & 
H.R.C. NO. 36629-S OF 2018 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 19.02.2016 passed 
by the High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad in R.A. No. 
272/2011) 
 
Manzoor Hussain and another  
 
 
(In CA 42-K/2016) 
Application for early hearing filed by Mst. Azra 
Shamim, respondent No. 2 
 
 
 
(In HRC 36629-S/18) 
… Appellants 
VERSUS 
Khalid Aziz and others  
 
 
 
(In CA 42-K/2016) 
… Respondents 
 
For the Appellants: 
Mr. Abid S. Zuberi, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. K.A. Wahab, AOR 
 
 
For Respondents (1-2): Syed Abdul Waheed, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Ms. Lubna Ali d/o Mst. Azra Shamim 
 
On Court’s Notice: 
Mr. Shoukat Bijoro, Mukhtiarkar, Tando Adam 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Umer Farooq, Tapedar 
 
 
 
 
(They appeared subsequently) 
 
Date of Hearing:  
07.09.2018 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- The dispute in these proceedings 
relates to 56 acres and 28 ghuntas of land situated in Deh and Taluqa 
Tando Adam, District Sanghar. A big part of this land was an evacuee 
land, which was granted to Shah Azizullah Abbasi and her 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 before the 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 42-K OF 2016 & 
H.R.C. NO. 36629-S OF 2018 
2
Senior Civil Judge, Tando Adam for declaration, permanent injunction, 
cancellation of documents, possession and mesne profits. The suit was 
decreed vide judgment dated 30.04.2010. It was held that the 
appellants have failed to establish that the parents of the respondents 
No. 1 & 2 have sold the land to respondent No. 3 & 4. The appellants 
then filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Tando Adam, 
which was allowed vide judgment dated 24.09.2011 and the judgment 
of the Trial Court was reversed. Aggrieved by such decision, the 
respondents No. 1 & 2 filed a Revision Application before the High 
Court, which was allowed, the judgment of the Appellate Court was set 
aside and that of the Trial Court restored. While allowing the revision 
application, the learned High Court held that the appellants have failed 
to prove that the land is question was sold to respondent No. 3 & 4 by 
the deceased owners; that no document of sale transaction with the 
deceased was placed on record; no witness of the sale transaction 
appeared in Court and even the revenue officials, who allegedly 
attested such entries, were not examined as witnesses. This decision 
has been challenged in this appeal.  
 
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellants inter alia submitted 
that the judgment of the High Court is entirely based on misreading 
and non-reading of evidence as there was no material to hold that the 
revenue record was tampered. It was also argued that the suit filed by 
the respondents was barred by time.  
 
3. 
 
Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 & 2 in rebuttal 
contended that it was for the appellants to prove that the sale 
transactions had taken place between their parents and respondents 
No. 3 & 4 but they failed as neither any document as to payment of 
sale consideration was produced nor the witnesses of sale transactions 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 42-K OF 2016 & 
H.R.C. NO. 36629-S OF 2018 
3
or the officials before whom the alleged sale took place were examined 
by the appellants and that the entire claim of the appellants was solely 
based on the revenue entries, which are fraudulent.  
 
4. 
 
Apart from examining the record, we out of abandoned 
caution summoned the revenue record and upon examining it found 
that Shah Azizullah sold 3-39 acres of land bearing survey No. 483/3, 
through registered sale deed dated 25.05.1987 to one Abdul Sattar 
which is not subject matter of present proceedings and yet we are 
surprised to note that the disputed sale transactions made in 1986 and 
1987 are based merely on oral statements purportedly made by Shah 
Azizullah and her wife before the revenue authorities and allegedly 
witnessed by persons namely Furqan son of Gul Muhammad Mirani, 
Noor Muhammad Sheikh son of Ladhu Khan Sheikh, Sher Muhammad 
son of Babu Khan Bhatti and Muhammad Yaqoob son of Qaiser Junejo 
none of whom are from the side of the parents of respondents No. 1 & 
2. Additionally, the disputed statements neither contains their CNIC 
numbers nor their addresses, only their purported thumb impressions, 
which show that they were also illiterate. Although the CNIC numbers 
would have helped in confirming that these witnesses actually affixed 
their thumb impressions on the revenue record but due to the absence 
of the CNIC numbers, it could not be verified from NADRA’s database. 
In any case, as none of the witnesses of the disputed statements were 
examined in Court, it is sufficient to hold that the transaction of sale 
has not been proved. Additionally, from the examination of the register 
of village Forms VII, the page that contains one of the two disputed 
transfer entries is numbered as ‘58’. The font of the page number ‘58’ is 
quite bigger than the page numbers on the remaining pages of the 
same register; that the imprint of page number ‘58’ is also much darker 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 42-K OF 2016 & 
H.R.C. NO. 36629-S OF 2018 
4
than the imprint of the rest of the page numbers of the same register. 
We may mention here that when pages of a register are numbered with 
a numbering machine, it is not possible that the size of numbers on 
pages would be different. Even the impression of ink on a particular 
page of a register would be the same in comparison to previous and 
subsequent pages. Either the impression would be light or darker but 
in the present case the impression on page No. ‘58’ is much 
pronounced i.e. it is darker than the impression of page numbers on 
the earlier and subsequent pages. This page also appears to have been 
subsequently inserted in the register as it is taped from the spine. All 
this further leads us to draw inference that page number ‘58’ was not 
part of the same register but has been subsequently inserted 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.  
 
5. 
 
With regard to the disputed sale transaction of 20-34 acres 
allegedly entered into with Mst. Tayyeba Khatoon, it was pleaded that 
she being resident of Karachi came to Tando Adam with her relative to 
record her oral statement for transferring the land. Interestingly, 
relative was not made a witness in the purported statement. Then the 
alleged witnesses of the disputed statement were also not examined in 
court. Their CNIC numbers too have not been recorded nor have their 
addresses been given. Even the CNIC number of Mst. Tayyeba Khatoon 
is not mentioned in the statement. This second sale transaction also 
could not be proved. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the 
Member, 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. In case any of them has 
retired, criminal action may be initiated.  
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 42-K OF 2016 & 
H.R.C. NO. 36629-S OF 2018 
5
 
6. 
 
In view of what has been stated above, we find no 
exception to the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge of the 
High Court in its well reasoned judgment, therefore, we do not find any 
merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to 
costs.  
 
H.R.C. NO. 36629-S OF 2018 
7. 
 
Since, judgment is being rendered on merits in this appeal 
the above referred HRC for early hearing of the said appeal has become 
infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
Announced on 22.11.2018 in Islamabad. 
 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram