' On 31-10-1994 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents. In the plaint, it was stated that the land measuring 4 Kanals 2 Marlas described in para.2 of the plaint is jointly owned. The respondent No.1 filed an application before the Collector, Gujrat, for correction of entries in the column of possession. The petitioners filed a declaratory suit and obtained a stay order but, notwithstanding, the Collector, Gujrat, ordered attestation of Mutation No.771 on 15-5-1994 for correction of the possession column. According to the plaint, the respondent No.1 owned only 10 marlas land in Khewat No.32. He inherited two Marlas from her mother, namely, Naimat Bibi and thus owned total 12 Marlas. He sold six marlas to one Muhammad Latif vide Mutation No.664 attested on 17-1-1994. Thereafter, he proceeded to sell the entire suit land in possession column to the respondent No.5 vide Mutation No.774 attested on 22-6-1994. This sale was stated to be illegal and a declaration was accordingly sought. The contesting respondents Nos.1 and 5 in their written statement took the plea that correction of the entry in the column of possession has been upheld upto the Board of Revenue and the suit is not competent. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 6-3-2002. A learned A.D.J., Gujrat, dismissed the first appeal of the petitioners on 11-6-2003.
2. Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that both the learned Courts below completely failed to understand the controversy involved in the case. According to the learned counsel, somehow or the other the learned Courts below mixed up the correction of entries in the possession column with the column dealing with the title and ended up in non-suiting the petitioners. Ch. Muhamthad Sadiq, learned counsel for the contesting respondents Nos.1 and 5, supports the impugned judgments and decrees by stating that the entire suit land was validly sold by respondent No.1 to respondent No.5 in the column of possession.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the impugned judgments would show that both the learned Courts below were very much impressed by the fact that the entry in the column of possession corrected in favour of respondent No.1 was upheld upto the Board of Revenue, Lahore. After so holding, they have abruptly upheld the sale made by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.5 and they have done this by completely misreading rather failing to read the evidence on record.
4. Needless to state that by now it is a settled rule that a person like the respondent No.1 who is in possession of specific Khasra number in a joint Khata can sell the said specific land in the column of possession provided the area sold is commensurate to his holding in the joint Khewat.
5. Now Exh.P.9 is the copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1991-92. According to this document, Muhammad Zaman respondent No.1 has 371/20736 share equal to 10 marlas in Khewat No.32, wherein admittedly the proprietary Khasra numbers i.e. 380 measuring 2 Kanals, 17 Marlas, 690/365 measuring 2 Marlas and 692/365 measuring one Kanal are located. The total area of these Khasra numbers comes to 3 Kanals and 19 Marlas. Now, admittedly, Muhammad Zaman respondent had inherited two Marlas from his mother Naimat Bibi. His total ownership in the Khewat comes to 12 Marlas. He sold six Marlas of land from this Khewat. Vide Mutation No. 764 Exh.
P.5 attested on 17-1-1994 to Muhammad Latif. Thus, he was left with six Marlas in the said Khewat on 22-6-1994 when he made the sale of the entire said land measuring three Kanals, 19 Marlas in favour of respondent. No.5 vide Mutation No.774 (Exh.P.8) which was attested on 22-6-1994.
6. Thus, he proceeded to sell the land in excess of his share in the Khewat.
7. So far as Shamlat Khasra No.364 measuring three Marlas is concerned, that falls in Khewat No.41 and is Shamlat Deh. Out of this Khasra number as well Muhammad Zaman could not have sold land beyond his said share and sale of this number beyond a fraction of a Maria is also void being in excess of his share.
8. Having thus examined the records, ' I do find that the learned Courts below have acted with material irregularity in exercise of their respective jurisdiction while failing to read the entire evidence on record and holding the sale to be valid.
9. The civil revision accordingly is allowed. Both the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below are set aside and the suit filed by the petitioners is decreed to the extent that the sale effected by means of Mutation No.774 attested on 22-6-1994 is illegal and void and ineffective beyond six marlas share of the respondent No.1 in Khewat No.32 with reference to copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1991-92 (Exh.P.9). No orders as to costs.