MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 18.5.1995 the respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the petitioner No. 1 and against Noor Jehan, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos. 2-A to 2-C. In the plaint it was stated that Mst. Gulai, mother of the said three ladies was holding limited estate in respect of the suit land. On her death estate reverted to the three sisters in equal shares. It was then stated that upon an examination of the revenue records it had revealed that no land stands in the name of the respondent No. 1. Upon inquiries she came to know that Mst. Gulai had made a gift of 1/2 share in favour of the said Noor Jehan vide Mutation No. 1691 which was entered but was rejected but the said 1/2 share continues in the name of the petitioner No. 1. It was then stated that in any case Mst. Gulai being a limited owner was not competent to make, any alienation and the entry in the revenue record is without any basis as the mutations stood cancelled. She accordingly sought a declaration that she is owner of 1/3 share equal to 47 kanals, 17 marlas in the suit land and that the said Mutations Nos. 606 and 1691 are ineffective upon her rights. In the alternate decree for joint possession was prayed for. The petitioners filed a written statement taking the plea that Mst. Gulai was a full and not limited holder. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.1995. A learned District Judge, Attock dismissed the first appeal of the petitioners on 30.11.1996.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that admittedly Mst. Gulai had made the said gifts and as such the suit to challenge the said gifts was to be governed by the provisions of the Punjab Act No. II of 1920 and the suit was barred by time. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. On the other hand contends that there was no admission of any alienation rather it was stated that the alienation never materialized and the mutations were cancelled but the entries are continuing in the revenue records.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the status of the said Mst. Gulai is concerned, I will suffice by referring to the statement of Abdul Haq petitioner DW-3. He expressed ignorance , that suit land was the property of the last male owner Taqi. He, however, admitted that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to 1/3 share in the estate. He insisted that Mst. Gulai had divested respondent No. 1 of the same. The matters are further clarified in the statement of Ghulam Nabi DW-1 and Khan Gui DW-2 both produced by the petitioners. These witnesses have stated that the land belonged to Taqi and on his death he was survived by a widow and three daughters. They then name the said daughters in the ladies who are parties to this suit. hey admit that on the death of Taqi the land was mutated in favour of Mst.,Gulai.
4. There is thus no serious dispute that Taqi was the last male owner. He died and vide mutation Ex.P. 1 the land was mutated in favour of Mst. Gulai, his widow as a limited owner. Now Ex.P. 1 is mutation No. 606 entered in favour of the said Mst. Noor Jehan while Ex.P. 3 is Mutation No. 1691 entered in favour of petitioner No. 1. Both these mutations were cancelled. However, somehow these mutations came to be incorporated in the revenue records, notwithstanding the facts that these were cancelled. Even otherwise I do not find any evidence in support of any gift having been made by Mst. Gulai in favour of petitioner No. 1 or the said Mst. Noor Jehan. This being so, it was not a suit challenging any alienation. On the other hand the suit was brought to complain that the revenue records are incorrect inasmuch as despite the cancellation of the mutations, the entries are being maintained in accordance with the same. This, therefore, was a suit under section 53 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 and the learned lower Courts after examining the evidence on record have decreed the same. accordingly. No case stands made out for interference with the impugned judgments and decrees under section 115, CPC. The civil is dismissed with no orders as to costs.