' This judgment shall decide Civil Revisions Nos.1392 and 1393 of 1999 as somewhat common questions are involved and these were ordered to be heard together.
2. On 18-2-1985 two petitioners in Civil Revision No.1392 of 1999 and Akbar Ali petitioner in Civil Revision No.1393 of 1999 (hereinafter to be referred as the first and second petitioners respectively) filed two suits against the respondents. According to the two plaints suit-land mentioned therein were owned by respondents Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners transferred their land mentioned in para.1 of the plaints in favour of the said respondents in exchange for suit-lands. The possession was also exchanged. The petiticrners got mutation attested in favour of the said respondents. However, the mutations entered in favour of the petitioners in respect of the suit-land were cancelled. They accordingly sought declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit-land and in the alternate they sought specific performance of the agreement to exchange dated 3-6-1981. It may be noted that during the pendency of the suit respondents Nos.3 to 5 were gifted the suit-land by respondents Nos.1 and 2 and were accordingly. Impleaded. In the joint written statement filed by the respondents they denied the said exchange being pleaded by the petitioners. Now in the first instance both the suits were consolidated and tried as such. The suits were decreed vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 21-3-1995. In the Court of first appeal, however, set aside the said consolidated judgment and decree and remanded the case to the learned trial Court on 15-1...-1997 directing that the suits be separately decided. Learned trial Court accordingly recorded judgments and decrees separately in the two suits on 4-7-1998 dismissing both the suits. These judgments were affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, while dismissing the first appeals of the petitioners on 3-6-1999.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that none of the D.Ws. Denied the factum of the exchange. There is no denial that land of the petitioners stood transferred to respondents Nos.1 and 2 and possession was delivered. According to the learned counsel the said exchange agreement stood proved on record. The respondents have been served and are represented by Messrs Ch. Muhammad Hassan and Ch. Muhammad Siddique, Advocates, whose names are duly listed in the cause list today. Despite repeated calls no one has turned up. The respondents are accordingly proceeded against ex parte.
3. I have examined the copies of the records of both these cases with the assistance of the learned counsel. Now Muhammad Hanif one of the first petitioners appeared as P.W.1 while Akbar Ali second petitioner appeared as P.W.8. They made statements in accord with their plaints. Both of them specifically stated that the possession of the land transferred by them and mutated in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2 was delivered to them while suit-land was put into possession of the petitioners wherein they raised constructions. I find that the said specific fact that the petitioners transferred their land in favour of the respondents and delivered them the possession was not at all questioned in the cross-examination while it was suggested to both the said witnesses that they have taken over the possession of the suit-land thaauthorizedly. The witnesses are supported by Mehr Pervaiz Iqbal, Advocate, who was appointed as a local commissioner and was examined as.
P.W.5 to prove his report Exh.P.2 stating that the land is in possession of the petitioners and construction raised thereon, Saeed Ahmad P.W.6 and Muhammad Yousaf P.W.7; Allah Ditta and Mukhtar Ahmad. P.Ws.1 and 2, in the second suit also supported the said version categorically stating that the lands were exchanged and possession was delivered by one to the other party.
Now, on the other hand, Muhammad Boota appeared as D.W.1 and in his very examination-in-chief stated that he does not know as to whether the parties exchanged their lands. Similar is the case with Faqir Hussain D.W.3 and Nazir Ahmad D.W.4.
4. Now Muhammad Afzal Magistrate appeared as P.W.2 to state that he attested Mutation No.374 on 13-6-1981 while he was Tehsildar Nankana and that it was mutation of exchange. Abdul Aziz City Magistrate as P.W.3 appeared to state that the Mutation No. 252 was taken up by him as Tehsildar Nankana but Hira respondent expressed ignorance regarding exchange and he cancelled the mutation.
5. Now Mutation No.372 is Exh.P.10 whereby Akbar second petitioner transferred his land in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2 while Mutation No.374 is Exh.P.16 whereby the first petitioners transferred their land in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2. These are exchange mutations and according to P.Ws. The possession had been delivered to respondents Nos.1 and 2. I have already noted above that the relevant P.Ws. Were not cross-examined at all regarding the said statements. So far as the possession of the suit-land is concerned, it stands conceded in the evidence as also in the impugned judgments, to be with the petitioners. However, learned Courts below have opted to describe the said possession as unauthorized without there being any evidence on record in support of the said observations. To my mind, in the absence of any explanation for transfer and delivery of possession of the land admittedly belonging to the petitioners in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and further admitted fact that the petitioners are in possession of the suit-land as stated by them, only inference that can be drawn is that the possession is relatable to the said exchange. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.