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 snit, 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 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 pre- emption 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 unsuspectingl y 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 depute d 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 neighborhood. 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. 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.