' On 8-2-1969, respondents Nos. I to 3 filed a suit against the appellant and the remaining respondents. Latter respondents Nos.4 to 7 were also transposed as plaintiffs. It was stated in the amended plaint that Wahid Bakhsh, father of the appellant on the one part and the plaintiffs and their predecessor as detailed in Para. No. I of the plaint on the other part exchange their lands vide registered exchange deed dated 15-10-1942. According to this document, the plaintiffs had given 6 !Canals and 16 Marlas of land to said Wahid Bakhsh. Mutation No.727 was attested on the basis of said registered document dated 13-3-1943. It was then stated that respondent No.1 on the one hand and respondent No.4 on the second and respondents Nos.2, 4 to 7 on the 3rd are owners of 1/3 share each out of the land measuring 43 Kanals, 11 Marlas and are continuously in possession of the same. During the preparation of register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1943-44 Wahid Bakhsh in collusion with the Revenue official got entered his name in the ownership column against the said land comprising Khatas Nos.335, 336 and 337 over and above the land given to him by plaintiffs in exchange, whereas this land was never transferred to Wahid Bukhsh. In the year 1960-61, Wahid Bakhsh sold 4 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land in Khata No.342 to his son, appellant, vide Mutation No.1316 and while incorporating the said mutation the said remaining three Khatas were also recorded to be owned by the appellants. In the year 1965 consolidation took place and against the said Khatas mentioned in Para 8 of the plaint were allocated to the appellants. With these averments a decree for possession of the said land was sought. In his written statement the appellants objected that as the consolidation proceedings had been sought to be challenged, therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. On merit an evasive reply was given. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties recorded. Vide judgment and decree dated 18-1-1975, the learned trial Court decreed the suit. First appeal filed by the appellant was heard by the learned District Judge, Multan, who partly allowed the appeal and modified the decree of the learned trial Court so as to make it effective to the extent of 26 Kanals and 5 Marlas of land in Khata No.234 according to Jamabandi for the year 1966-67 (Exh.P.15). The remaining suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25-1-1983.
2. The learned counsel for appellant has argued that the learned District Judge erred while dismissing his application for grant of permission to lead additional evidence. According to him the case of his client is that he had got the land by inheritance, but he was not allowed to prove the same.
3. The learned counsel for respondents on the other hand, vehemently argued that no such plea was taken by the appellants in their written statement and otherwise there is nothing on record that the land admittedly belonging to the plaintiff was ever transferred to the appellant or his father by them in any manner.
4. I have gone through the record of both the learned Courts below with the assistance of the learned counsel for parties.
5. I have already reproduced above the respective pleadings of parties. Whereas the plaintiffs had categorically averred that only 6 Kanals and 15 Marlas of land was given to the father of the appellant in exchange and the land in suit was never transferred in any manner. The appellant has not stated anywhere in his written statement as to how he or his father became owner of the said land, which admittedly was owned by the plaintiffs in the Revenue Record prior to 1943-44. I have gone through the application filed under Order 41, rule 27 C.P.C. By the appellant before the learned District Judge as also the various documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence. The application narrates that the plea of the appellant before the trial Court was that the suit-land devolved upon him on death of his her mother, but in "Fard Intikhab" produced in the trial Court, there is no reference to the said devolution. Thereafter, he agitated that apart from the inheritance the appellant also acquired the suit-land by purchase. With this averment, he stated that he wanted to produce Mutation No.463 attested on 24-3-1935, whereby the land was transferred by Wahid Bakhsh to Mst. Jatti and Mutation No.506 dated 23-5-1937 on behalf of Mst.
Jatti and further Mutation No.1021 attested on 5-12-1963. The learned District Judge dismissed the application on 16-4-1977 on the short ground that there is no explanation as to why the documents were not produced in the learned trial Court. Apart from the said ground stated by the learned District Judge as stated by me above that no such plea was taken by the appellant in the trial Court. I have already referred his written statement above. Be that as it may, the illegal entry cropped up in Jamabandi for the year 1943-44 so the mutation attested on 5-12-1953 would hardly be relevant. Similarly Mutation No.463 and 506 do not at all pertains to the suit-land, with reference to the entry in Jamabandi for the year 1943-44 Exh.P.22. Nothing, therefore, turns to support the contention of the learned counsel.
6. I have examined "Fard Intikhab" with reference to the Revenue Record referred to therein, I find that the learned District Judge has, of course, taken pain in arranging and discussing every entry in the impugned judgment, reasoning and conclusion are fully supported by the evidence on record.
What has happened is that the ownership of the plaintiffs was recorded against Khata No.273 in register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1936-37, Exh.P.1. This Khata reflects subject-matter of the exchange. In Jamabandi for the year 1943-44, Exh.P.2. Khatas Nos.273 was given No.292. The suit- land forms part of Khata No.335, 336 and 337. The ownership of the father of appellant was recorded in Khata No.273 (old) and Khatas No.292 (new); while filling up the ownership column pertaining to Khata Nos.335, 336 and 337 Patwari proceeded to mention that the ownership is same as in Khata No.292. This mistake, deliberate or otherwise, continued thereafter.
7. The learned counsel for appellant is unable to question the manner in which the learned District Judge has traced the land as per particular of post consolidation record and the one mentioned in Jamabandi for the year 1936-37. It is settled proposition of law that once it is found that the entries have been unlawfully changed, then it shall be deemed that the correct entries lawfully made remained in operation. Reference can be made to the case Misri through Legal Heirs and others v.
Muhammad Sharif and others (1997 SCM R 338).
8. Learned counsel for appellant then tried to argue that since the consolidation had been effected, the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred. The objection is baseless. It is evident that pure questions of title arise in the matter, only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon it. This second appeal has no merit. It is, therefore, dismissed. No orders as to costs. The record of both the Courts below shall be remitted back immediately.