1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and decree of a learned Judge of the Peshawar High Court, dated the 28th of October, 1978, whereby he has accepted the second appeal filed by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 7 and restored the judgment and decree made in their favour by the trial Court on the 22nd of March, 1968, in a suit for declaration and possession in respect of certain agricultural land situate in village Kholian Bala in Tehsil Haripur, District Hazara.
2. The facts giving rise to the litigation between the parties are that by means of a registered exchange deed dated the 8th of August, 1945, Abdur Rehman predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs exchanged 1/16th share of his land measuring 26 kanals and 14 marlas of land comprised in Khasra No. 213 with 1/4th share of land owned by Mst. Khan Sahibai predecessor-in-interest of respondents 8 and 9. He also paid her Rs. 250 in cash. On the basis of this registered exchange deed Mutation No. 4883/2 was attested on 5-1-1946 by the Revenue Officer in the presence of Abdur Rehman, but instead of 1/16th share, the exchange transaction was entered in respect of 1,14th share of his holding. The exchange was later incorporated in Misal-i-Haqiat of 1947-48, and then carried forward in successive Jamaban--dis up-to date It may be mentioned here that Mst.
3. Khan Sahibai had died in 1951 and mutation of her inheritance was attested in favour of her husband and son on the same basis.
4. The land in dispute was purchased by the present petitioner Mohammad Aslam on the 30th of May, 1966, from respondents 8 and 9. Previously the land was under mortgage, and it was redeemed by the petitioner under a mutation attested on the 10th of August, 1966. In the ,registered sale deed in favour of ,the petitioner 1/4th share was mentioned as having been sold to him.
5. The plaintiffs filed their suit against the petitioner on the 11th of July, 1967, claiming a declaration that they were still the owners of 3/16th share of the land and they also prayed for possession. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on the 22nd of March, 1968, on the footing that the divergent entry in the mutation of exchange, contrary to the recital in the registered sale deed, did not create any right in favour of Mst. Khan Sahibai, nor did it amount to any representation by the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest. He further held that the suit was within time.
6. After hearing the learned counsel at some tength, we are of the view that there is no merit in the submissions made by him. As to the question of estoppel, it is clear that the mutation had been entered on the basis of the registered deed, and there is no evidence to show that Abdur Rehman had made any contrary averment before the Revenue Officer. In the circumstances, the High Court was right in observing that Abdur Rehman had no means of knowing that the Revenue Officer had by mistake mentioned a larger share of his land having been exchanged. It is not shown as to how Abdur Rehman was responsible for the erroneous entry which was later reflected in successive Jamabandis. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with this part of the findings recorded by the High Court.
7. As to the question of limitation and adverse possession, it will be seen that the land was, indeed, in the possession of the mortgagee until 1966, and, therefore there could be no question of any adverse possession over the disputed shares. The land was redeemed by the present petitioner in g 1966, after he had purchased from the same heirs of Mst. Khan Sahibai. The suit having been filed in 1967 was, therefore, clearly within time.
8. The cases cited by the- learned counsel are hardly relevant. In the first case, it was observed by Zafar A.I, J. That using the land as a cattle-shed was not tantamount to possession and it was upon the defendants to establish adverse possession for over 12 years.
9. A perusal of the facts of this case shows that the impugned entry had been made on a specific application having been made by the plaintiff to the Revenue Officer, and the Court held that limitation in such 'a case would run from the date the entry was made on the plaintiff's own submis--sion. In the instant case, the plaintiffs' predecessor Abdur Rehman had informed the revenue authorities about the exchange on the basis of the exchange deed. We have already said that there is no evidence that he gave any contrary information. This is, therefore, not a case where the wrong entry in the mutation was made at the instance of Abdur Rehman himself. In the circumstances limitation would run from the date on which the land became available for possession, namely, on redemption of the mortgage in 1966.
10. For the foregoing reasons, it appears to us that the High Court was right in restoring the judgment and decree of the trial Court. If the vendee had taken the trouble of examining the exchange deed which formed the basis of the relevant mutation, he could have easily discovered that the share exchanged by Abdur Rehman was only 1/16th and not 1/4th. For this reason the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit on account of the incorrect entry having been repeated in the revenue records since 1946-47.
11. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.