' This revision petition impugns the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court dated 14-10-2000 and of the learned Additional District Judge dated 3-7-2002 in appeal. The facts of this case are straightforward. The petitioner owns land measuring 10 Kanals and 12 Marlas being 7/96 share in a joint Khata No.79 in Chak No.13 Jodh Sing Wala, Tehsil Chunian, District, Kasur. She, however, resides in Sheikhupura.
2. She filed a suit, out of which the present petition arises, to challenge Mutation No.1445 dated 24- 11-1985 (Exh.P.2). The said mutation purports to record the exchange of the petitioner's above- mentioned land with land measuring 5 Kanals, 2 Marlas belonging to Muhammad Anwar respondent No.1 in the same Chak. The case of the petitioner is that she never exchanged her land with the land of Muhammad Anwar respondent No.
1. According to learned counsel, she merely approached the respondents Nos.1 and 2, who are Lumberdars of Chak No.13, with the object of seeking assistance to partition the joint Khata No.79 in which she was owner of 7/96 share. For this purpose, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 had taken her to the Patwari. She has denied that she made any report as to the alleged exchange. On this basis, Rapt No.168 dated 12-11-1985 (Exh.P.1) which shows her presence and the presence of her son for the purpose of the alleged exchange, has been assailed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has, firstly, argued that the mutation Exh.P.2 does not bear the thumb-impression of the petitioner/plaintiff. The presence of the petitioner/plaintiff shown in the said mutation is also false, according to him. It has been manoeuvred by the respondents Nos.1 and 2, who are Lumberdars of the Chak, with the connivance of Muhammad Siddique respondent No.3, who is a Pattidar. The petitioner/plaintiff was 60 to 65 years old in 1985 when the alleged Mutation No.1445 was sanctioned. The presence of her son; which is shown in the rapt Exh.P.1, does not find any mention in the mutation Exh.P.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Courts below have misread the evidence on record and, in particular, the mutation Exh.P.2 while concluding that the petitioner/plaintiff had agreed to and participated in the sanctioning of the impugned mutation.
5. I have gone through the record with the assistance of both learned counsel. It is obvious therefrom that the son of the petitioner/plaintiff was not present with her when the impugned exchange mutation was sanctioned. The petitioner herself, as noted above, was a Pardanashin lady of 60/65 years age. It is not credible that she appeared alone in the public assembly when Mutation No.1445 (Exh.P.2) was sanctioned.
6. In addition to the above, it is clear from the available evidence that the land measuring 10 Kanals, 12 Marlas belonging to the petitioner was of higher quality than the land measuring 5 Kanals and 2 Marlas belonging to the respondent, Muhammad Anwar which, purportedly, was exchanged. The land of the petitioner had residential potential as it was located close to the railway station and the Mandi while the land belonging to Muhammad Anwar respondent was at a distance.
7. In order to cover up the aforesaid discrepancy the respondent filed an application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. Seeking amendment of his written statement. In this petition it was averred that the petitioner had entered into an agreement dated 20-10-1985 to sell her land to the respondent for a total consideration of Rs.80,000 out of which a sum of Rs.47,000 had been paid by the respondent.
It was on this basis that the difference in the value of the two properties was attempted to be covered up. It is important to note that this plea was not taken up in the written statement nor was any reference made to the alleged agreement dated 20-10-1985. Furthermore, even in the exchange mutation there is no mention at all of the amount of Rs.47,000 allegedly paid by the respondent to the petitioner/ plaintiff. Even while adducing his evidence Muhammad Anwar did not produce or prove the above-referred agreement or the payment of any amount thereunder. This, in my opinion, is a glaring flaw in the defence set up by.Respondent No. 1.
8. One other significant contradiction appears in the testimony of Muhammad Anwar respondent/defendant who appeared as D.W.1. He deposed that he went to the Patwari on 24-11- 1985 for the purpose of the Rapt Roznamcha. However, the Rapt is actually dated 12-11-1985.
Moreover, in the Rapt Roznamcha it has been recorded that the parties have delivered possession of their respective land in pursuance of the exchange. However, in the written statement filed by the respondent he has made a contradictory averment stating that possession was taken by him later through a private partition.
9. The above circumstances clearly established from record leave me in no doubt that the petitioner/plaintiff had not made any exchange of her land with the land belonging to respondent No.
1. The Courts below have ignored the above aspects of the case and thus committed material error in the exercise of their jurisdiction.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the concurrent decrees dated 14-10-2000 passed by the learned trial Court and 3-7-2002 passed by the learned Appellate Court are set aside. The suit of the petitioner/plaintiff is decreed as prayed for and the exchange Mutation No.1445 dated 24-11- 1985 is declared to be void and inoperative. The petitioner/ plaintiff shall also be entitled to her costs throughout.