' On 5-4-1995, the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent. In the plaint it was stated that vide registered sale-deed dated 30-4-1975. The petitioner purchased four Kanals, seven Marlas from Lal son of Mehr for consideration and got possession. Mutation No.494 was attested on 15-5-1975. It was complained that later on the respondent got the said entire Khasra number recorded in her name as owner. He accordingly sought a declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit- land purchased by him. Now respondent in her written statement admitted the factum of sale. She, however, took a plea that in consolidation proceedings in the year 1980 the sale was found to be in excess of share and adjusted in the Khata of the co-sharer i.e. The respondent. Issues were framed.
' Evidence of the parties was recorded. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30-9-1997. First appeal filed by the respondent, however, was allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Attock on 8-6-2000 who dismissed the suit of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner had purchased the suit-land and in the absence of any evidence that the sale was in excess of the share of the vendor, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court could not have been set aside by the learned Additional District Judge on simple reference to section 26 of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, insists that since the petitioner lost land in consolidation proceedings, a Civil Court would not be having jurisdiction in the matter and the matter has been correctly dealt with by the learned Additional District Judge.
3. I have gone through the record appended with this C.R. With the assistance, of learned counsel for the parties. Now there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner had purchased the suit-land vide the said registered document. Not only this but mutation was also entered and attested thereby incorporating the sale into Revenue Records. It is no body's case that the petitioner was given any land equal to or less than the said holding acquired by him. This being so it was a pure question of title which could not at all have been decided by the consolidation authorities even if the question was before them. Now in the first instance, factum of sale is admitted. In the second there is a finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the petitioner is owner of the suit-land and is in possession. Learned Additional District Judge has on the other hand, held that the land was given in the consolidation proceedings to the respondent and as such it was for the petitioner to challenge the said consolidation proceedings in the forum provided in the said Ordinance.
4. I am afraid the learned Additional District Judge has made the matter rather simple. Unless and until it was to be found on the basis of evidence on record that sale in favour of the petitioner was beyond the share of his vendor, the same could not have been set aside even by the Civil Court muchless a consolidation officer. The impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge consequently attracts section 115, C.P.C. C.R. Accordingly is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 8-6-2000 of the learned Additional District Judge, Attock, is set aside.
Result would be that the said appeal filed by the respondent shall be deemed to be pending before the learned District Judge, Attock before whom the parties shall appear on 30-3-2004. Learned District Judge shall requisition the records and proceed either himself or entrust the same to any Additional District Judge who shall hear the parties and decide the appeal on the basis of pleadings and the evidence on record on its merits.
5. No orders as to costs.
6. A copy of this order be remitted to the learned District Judge, Attock, by the office.