Supreme Court of Pakistan
Ghani Rehman (deceased) and others v. Masal Khan (deceased) and others
Published on this website
Civil Appeal No. 19-P of 2015 out of CPLA No. 192-P of 2009
Citation: Approved for reporting; reported citation not stated in supplied copy
Background
Background
The Supreme Court held that a 30-year-old document receives only a discretionary presumption and cannot prove title where the transaction, land identity and official revenue record remain doubtful.
The plaintiff sought redemption and possession of land that his predecessor had mortgaged. The defendants claimed that the same predecessor had sold approximately six kanals to their predecessor through an unregistered deed dated 25 July 1932, followed by Mutation No. 63 in 1936. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed it and the Peshawar High Court dismissed the defendants' revision.
Questions of old-document proof, mutation and title
Questions of old-document proof, mutation and title
Whether an unregistered 1932 sale deed and Mutation No. 63 of 1936, supported by cultivation entries, proved a valid transfer of ownership despite inconsistencies, failure of attestation proof and non-production of the official mutation record.
Court holding
What the Court decided
No. The old-document presumption was discretionary and not conclusive. The deed, identity of the land and underlying sale were not proved through reliable evidence; cultivation and mutation entries could not independently confer title; and withholding the pert sarkar justified an adverse inference.
Final outcome
Final outcome
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellate decree in favour of the plaintiff, as maintained by the Peshawar High Court, remained undisturbed.
Practical effect
What the decision means in practice
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellate decree in favour of the plaintiff, as maintained by the Peshawar High Court, remained undisturbed.
This summary states the immediate effect recorded in the decision. The original judgment and the facts of the particular case remain controlling.
Key legal principles
Key legal principles
- A party asserting ownership through a sale bears the burden of proving the underlying transaction through cogent, reliable and convincing evidence.
- The presumption available for a document more than 30 years old is discretionary, not absolute or conclusive, and remains subject to surrounding circumstances.
- A historic deed must still be proved under the evidence law applicable to its execution; section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 required the prescribed attestation proof in this case.
- A deed must be reliably connected to the suit property; boundaries without corresponding khasra numbers did not establish identity on this record.
- An entry in the cultivation column is consistent with tenancy or permissive possession and does not, by itself, confer ownership.
- Mutation entries are maintained primarily for fiscal purposes and neither create nor extinguish title; the underlying transaction must be proved independently.
- The pert sarkar is the official revenue counterpart and best evidence of mutation proceedings; unexplained withholding justified an adverse inference under Article 129(g).
- Material inconsistencies, missing acknowledgement by the alleged vendor, later conduct and ambiguous crop-rights language may cumulatively defeat a claimed transfer of proprietary rights.
Pakistan relevance
Pakistan relevance
In Pakistani land-title litigation, counsel should prove the transaction, the identity of the parcel and the nature of the rights transferred as separate links. The complete mutation file, including the pert sarkar, attestation evidence, khasra linkage, ownership entries and later dealings should be secured before treating a revenue entry as support for title.
Research paths
Continue through a legal issue guide
New judgment alerts
Follow this court or legal topic
Receive new judgments and analysis about Supreme Court of Pakistan, Civil Law, Evidence by email.
Primary source
Original judgment and official source
This HTML summary does not replace the court record. Use the linked original judgment PDF or official court source to verify the exact text and directions.
Later treatment
Later treatment
The supplied copy is marked approved for reporting but states no reported citation. No later judicial treatment has been added as of 2 September 2026. Verify the official Supreme Court copy, reported citation and subsequent treatment before formal reliance.
Pinpoint research
Exact paragraph and citation links
Each numbered entry has a permanent link, a ready-to-copy pinpoint citation, and the corresponding page of the certified judgment. The short descriptions are editorial research aids; verify the Court's exact wording in the PDF.
Order of Justice Shakeel Ahmad8 paragraphs
Old document presumption is discretionary
Places the burden on the defendants to prove the alleged sale and explains that the presumption for a document more than 30 years old is neither absolute nor conclusive.
Discrepancy, identity and attestation proof
Addresses the inconsistent consideration, absence of khasra numbers, uncertain property identity and the proof required under section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Cultivation entry does not confer ownership
Distinguishes cultivation or permissive possession from proprietary title and gives precedence to the continuing ownership entries on the case record.
Subsequent mortgage and redemption
Treats the plaintiff's later mortgage and redemption as relevant conduct undermining the claim that ownership had already been sold in 1932.
Mutation is not title
Restates that mutations are fiscal entries and cannot confer ownership without independent proof of the underlying transaction.
Crop-rights entry remained ambiguous
Explains why the wording in column No. 13 appeared to concern Kharif crop rights and did not unequivocally record a transfer of proprietary ownership.
Cumulative defects defeated the transfer claim
Collects the documentary inconsistencies, proof failures, revenue entries, later conduct and withheld official record supporting the conclusion that no valid sale was proved.
Appeal dismissed
Finds no reviewable illegality or evidentiary error in the concurrent judgments and dismisses the appeal without costs.
Research tools
Use this judgment in your research
Copy a link to a specific part
Judgment text is provided for legal research and general information. Verify the official court record before relying on it in proceedings.
Related article
Related article
The Supreme Court held that a 30-year-old document receives only a discretionary presumption and cannot prove title where the transaction, land identity and official revenue record remain doubtful.
Read the related article →