' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.---Sher Muhammad, predecessor of the respondents Nos.1 to 10 transferred his land, fully detailed and described in the plaint, to Ghulam Muhammad, predecessor of the petitioners, by way of Mutation No,345 dated 31-12-1988. He filed a suit for declaration questioning the legality of afore-mentioned mutation on the ground of having been secured by way of collusion of the petitioner's predecessor with Revenue officials and was, thus, ineffective on his right. After trial, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 18-4-1995. Appeal was preferred which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha on 8-5-1996. The defendant has now come up to this Court in revision.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner that sale admitted in the evidence by the respondents/plaintiffs and that they had badly failed to prove the transaction as mortgage instead of sale. He further submits that non-payment of part of sale consideration will not affect the validity of the sale transaction. The learned counsel for the respondents, in opposition, supports the judgment of the learned appellate Court.
3. I have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Sher Muhammad original plaintiff-predecessor of respondents was a Lambardar of the revenue estate concerned. The transaction in dispute was witnessed by P.W.1 Noor (son), P.W.2 Faiz Muhammad (son-in-law) and P.W.3 Zulfiqar real brother of Sher Muhammad, transferor. P.W.4 Ikhtiar Khan stated that Sher Muhammad has given the land to Ghulam Muhammad predecessor of the petitioner on mortgage for a period of one year. All the afore-mentioned P.Ws. Have admitted the presence of Sher Muhammad at the time of sanction of mutation. They also admit that mutation was entered and sanctioned at his stance. In cross-examination, he admits that Faiz Muhammad had signed while Zulfiqar has put his thumb-impression on the mutation in dispute.
He also admits that Sher Muhammad was identified by P.W.2 and P.W.3. Both of them have also admitted their presence at the time of sanction of mutation before the Revenue Officer. P.W.4 has admitted that Sher Muhammad, deceased, was the Lambardar of revenue estate of Jaroola. In cross-examination he conceded that he was not present at the time of entry of mutation as well as its sanction.
5. The petitioner-defendant produced Rafi Ullah Naib Tehsildar as D.W.2. He with reference to original Mutation No,345, deposed that it was sanctioned on the statement and at instance of Sher Muhammad, transferor, who was identified by Faiz Muhammad and Zulfiqar. Sher Muhammad had acknowledged receipt of Rs,100,000 as sale consideration. He also admitted delivery of possession of the suit-land to petitioner's predecessor. In cross-examination, he stated that on the same date Mutation No,343 (Exh.C-1) was also sanctioned by him. Parties to the mutation were identified by plaintiff as Lambardar. D.W.3 Faiz Muhammad, Patwari, stated that the mutation in dispute was entered by him on the statement of plaintiff. Faiz Muhammad and Zulfiqar were the witnesses before the Revenue Officer at the time of its sanction. Plaintiff had admitted the receipt of sale consideration and delivery of possession. D.W.3 further stated that Sher Muhammad was a Lambardar of the Village and in that capacity, identified parties to Mutation No,343, sanctioned on the same date. D.W.4 Ghulam Muhammad, defendant, stated that Sher Muhammad was the Lambadar. He had transferred suit-land against sale consideration of Rs,100,000. He himself had appeared before the Revenue Officer. He had acknowledged the receipt of sale consideration. He was identified by Zulfiqar, his real brother and Faiz Muhammad, his son-in-law.
6. Exh.P.1 is mutation in dispute which was sanctioned on 31-12-1988 in the revenue estate of Jaroola. It contained signature of Faiz Muhammad P.W.2 and thumb-impression of Muhammad Zulfiqar P.W.3. Plaintiff appeared in person. Copy of mutation, Exh.C-1 evidences another transaction of sale on the same date on the identification of plaintiff.
7. After evaluating the above evidence, I now propose to discuss the reasoning given by the learned first appellate Court in reversing the judgment of the trial Court. The learned appellate Court had held that original transaction resulting into entry or attestation of mutation in dispute was not proved by the defendant; mutation was attested in revenue estate Jaroola as per statement of D.W.2, but the defendant stated that it was sanctioned in the revenue estate Farooqa and that there was no evidence of passing of consideration amount.
8. The mutation was admitted to have been entered at the instance of Sher Muhammad. It was sanctioned in presence of Sher Muhammad by the Revenue Officer. This fact stand admitted in the statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. The Tehsildar who attested the mutation has appeared himself as D.W.2 and Patwari who entered the mutation in dispute has appeared as D.W.3. Both have stated in clear terms that plaintiff appeared himself and made statement confirming sale transaction. Mutation was entered and sanctioned in revenue estate Jaroola. It was so stated by D.W.2 and D.W.3. Plaintiff's witnesses did not challenge the mutation on this ground. Statement of defendant indicating sanction in Mauza Farooqa will be of no help to the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance on Muhammad Ishaq and 2 others v. Ghafoor Khan and another (2000 SCM R 519), wherein it is held that once the genuineness of a sale transaction is established, the mere irregularity in procedure regarding attestation of mutation would not affect the binding effect of the mutation.
9. The most important entities in connection with the attestation of the mutation are undoubtedly the Patwari Halqa who had entered the mutation and the Revenue Officer who had sanctioned the same. Both the said functionaries have been examined by the petitioners as their witnesses who supported the entry and sanction of mutation at the instance and on statement of vendor.
10. Once the entry of mutation before the Patwari, its sanction by the Revenue Officer and appearance of plaintiff (vendor) C at the time of sanction of mutation is admitted, then its genuineness cannot be denied by any stretch of imagination. The documents admitted to have been executed, but contents denied without material in D support thereof, shall be deemed to have been admitted.
11. There is overwhelming evidence that plaintiff (vendor) had received the sale consideration and acknowledged its receipt before the Revenue Officer. Even otherwise, the sale transaction cannot be set at naught on the ground that part payment has been made. Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, provides that genuineness of the transaction cannot be invalidated on the ground of part payment of the consideration amount. In that event, a party who had received less amount than the promised one can sue for its recovery. The reasons given by the learned first appellate Court thus, are without any merit.
12. The judgment of the learned trial Court is well-reasoned. It was correctly held that Sher Muhammad was Lambardar of revenue estate concerned. How can he be deprived of his valuable agriculture land by the Revenue Officer. Why the Revenue Officer will collude with the vendee to harm and damage the Lambardar, who has interaction with the Revenue Officer, often and then on account of the matters relating to his revenue estate. There is no reason to believe that Revenue Officer will deprive substitute the transaction of mortgage into that of sale.
13. For what has been discussed above, this civil revision succeeds, the impugned judgment of the learned appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored.