Ghulam Ahmed v Muzafara Begum,
YLR 2011 2991 · Balochistan High Court
Ghulam Ahmed sued to establish that he co-owned a house in Quetta with the family of Muzafara Begum and others. He said the house was jointly purchased in 1920 by his father and the defendants' great-grandfather through a registered sale deed, giving each side a 50% share. However, during a later settlement operation and subsequent revenue corrections, the property was wrongly recorded as being solely owned by the defendants' predecessor, cutting the plaintiff out entirely. The trial court had dismissed his suit, so he appealed.
The Balochistan High Court ruled in his favor. It held that a mutation entry in revenue records does not itself create ownership rights—it only creates a rebuttable presumption of ownership, which can be challenged and overturned with better evidence. Here, the 1920 registered sale deed clearly proved joint ownership, and the defendants could not produce any document showing how their ancestor became sole owner. The court found the mutation record naming him as exclusive owner was the product of fraud, which meant it was void from the start—and fraud-tainted entries don't get protection from the law of limitation, since the clock only starts running from when a plaintiff's rights are actually denied.
As a result, the court set aside the trial court's decision and ruled that the plaintiff was a half-owner of the property, also entitled to inherit further shares through his mother and wife, with the property to be properly corrected, partitioned, and possession handed over accordingly. The case illustrates how registered deeds can override faulty revenue records, and how fraud can defe
غلام احمد نے یہ ثابت کرنے کے لیے مقدمہ دائر کیا کہ وہ کوئٹہ میں واقع ایک مکان میں مظفرہ بیگم اور دیگر کے خاندان کے ساتھ شریک مالک ہے۔ اس کا کہنا تھا کہ یہ مکان 1920 میں اس کے والد اور مدعا علیہان کے پردادا نے ایک رجسٹرڈ بیع نامے کے ذریعے مشترکہ طور پر خریدا تھا، جس کے تحت ہر فریق کا حصہ پچاس فیصد بنتا تھا۔ تاہم بعد ازاں سیٹلمنٹ آپریشن اور اس کے بعد کی گئی محصولاتی تصحیحات کے دوران، جائیداد کو غلطی سے مکمل طور پر مدعا علیہان کے پیشرو کی ملکیت کے طور پر درج کر دیا گیا، جس سے مدعی کو مکمل طور پر جائیداد سے محروم کر دیا گیا۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے اس کا دعویٰ خارج کر دیا تھا، جس پر اس نے اپیل دائر کی۔
بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ نے اس کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ محصولاتی ریکارڈ میں انتقال کا اندراج بذات خود ملکیت کے حقوق پیدا نہیں کرتا، بلکہ یہ صرف ملکیت کا ایک قابل