' ABDUL SHAKOOOR PARACHA, J.---Petitioners, legal heirs of Mst. Waziran Mai, sought possession of land measuring 7 Kanals, 15 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos.998 and 1284 of Khata No,42/43 of the Register "Haqdaran Zameen" for the year 1989-90, situated in the revenue estate of Shikhani, claiming to be the owners by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Bhakkar, on 30-7-1992. The suit was contested by the respondents. It was contended that the petitioners-plaintiff have no concerned with the land in dispute and the suit was also barred by time. Defendant No,13 filed separate written statement contending therein that he was a bona fide purchaser and that he has spent Rs,1,25,000 over the construction. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed necessary issues. One of the plaintiffs Manzoor Hussain appeared as P.W.1, he produced copy of Khatooni Ishtimal Exh.P.1, copy of Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1977-78, Exh.P.III, Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1987-88 Exh.P.IV, copy of Jamabandi for the year 1982-83 Exh.PV and Khasra Girdawari for the year 1991-92 Exh.P.VI and VII. Amir Hussain and Hussain Bakhsh appeared as D.W.1 and D.W.2. Mutation Nos.2904 (Exh.D.1), 2905 (Exh.D.11), 2906 (Exh.D.III), and 2907 (Exh.D.IV) and copy of Khatooni Ishtimal Exh.D.V, copy of Register Haqdaran Zameen Exh.D.VI, copy of Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1977-78, Exh.D.VII, copy of Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1983-84 Exh.D.VIII, copy of Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1983-84 Exh.D.IX and copy of Khasra Girdawari Exh.D.X were also produced. Learned Civil Judge discussed Issues Nos.7 and 8 together and found that the petitioners were the owners of the land comprising Mutation Nos.998 and 1284 as per Exh.P.1 and P.3 and the vendors-defendants were owners of the land comprising Khasra Nos.1239 and 1285 as per Exh.P.II., Vendors were not the owners of the land in dispute and there was no evidence from the defendant No,13 being bona fide purchaser for value without notice, therefore, he was found not bona fide purchaser. Issues Nos.2 to 6, 8 and 9 were also found against the defendants. Suit was accordingly decreed in favour of the petitioners by judgment and decree dated 15-11-1995. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree, defendant No,13 filed an appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, through the impugned judgment and decree, dated 25-1-2001 accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and suit of the plaintiff-petitioners was dismissed, hence this civil revision.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the learned trial Court by reference to Exh.P.1 and P.3 found that the land in dispute belonged to the petitioners and the vendors were owners of different land as per Exh.P.II. The sale by them of Khasra Nos.998 and 1284 belonging to the petitioners was, therefore, invalid and inconsequential. Further that the defendant No,13 entered possession after sale to him through Mutation No,2907 dated 16-1-1988. Suit was filed on 30-7-1992 for possession and it was, therefore, in time. Adds that the petitioners were found owners of the land, therefore, suit for possession on the basis of proved title was maintainable. No suit could have been dismissed for any defect in the form. Defendant No,13 did not furnish any proof of spending Rs,1,25,000. His oral statement was not enough. This issue has wrongly been decided by the learned appellate Court by reversing the finding of the learned trial Court. Lastly, that the judgment of the first appellate Court is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence.
3. Learned counsel for defendant respondents contends that the respondent No,13 purchased the land from joint Khata owned by the petitioners as well as vendor of the respondents and without challenging the ownership through suit for declaration, the petitioners' suit for possession simplicitor was not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on case reported as Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Ferozi and others (PLD 2001 SC 213), Mst. Fatima hanum v. Ashiq Ali (PLD 1988 Karachi 433) and Allah Bakhsh and 4 others v. Dr. Abdul Waheed and another (PLD 1996 Karachi 458).
Further that the vendor of the respondent No,13 was co-sharer in Khata No,43 and the suit is not maintainable unless all the co-sharers in the joint Khata are impleaded as defendants. Reliance has been placed on case reported as Khalique Ahmed v. Abdul Ghani and another (PLD 1973 SC 214) and Mst. Seetan and others v. Mirza (KLR 1998 Civil Cases 225). The revenue entry appeared in the Jamabandi for the year 1977-78 Exh.P.4 in which the name of Amir Hussain vendor had appeared the suit filed by the petitioner on 30-7-1992 was barred by time. The name of the, vendor of respondent No,13 was existed in the Revenue Record along with Hussain Bukhsh and therefore, the suit for possession against co-sharers could have not been decreed. Reliance is placed on Messrs Qureshi Salt and Spices Industries, Khushab and another v. Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Karachi through President and 3 others (1999 SCMR 2353). Repondent is bona fide purchaser with consideration without notice.
4. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for parties and perused the record with their assistance. The petitioner has filed a suit for possession regarding land measuring 7 Kanals, 15 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos.998 and 1284 of Khata No,42/43. In Column No,7 of Mutation Exh.D.2 and D.3 which has been sanctioned in favour of predecessor-ininterest of the respondent Khata No,43 has been mentioned. In the Jamabandi for the year 1977-78 Exh.D.VII in. Column No,1 Hussain Bukhsh have been shown to be the owner of Khata No,43. Respondent No,13 Amir Hussain had purchased the land from Khasra Nos.998 and 1284 along with other Khasra Nos. As evident from Paracha Khatooni Exh.P.5. In the Revenue Record, the name of Hussain Bukhsh is at par from whom Amir Hussain purchased the land and constructed houses, boundary wall and installed a tube- well. In this view of the matter, petitioners were under legal obligation to challenge the adverse entries by filing a suit for declaration. -In case reported Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Ferozi and others (PLD 2001 SC 213), it has been held that, "suit for possession is not maintainable without seeking declaration in respect of title". Petitioners and others are co-sharers in Khata. Suit for possession could be brought by the co-owners jointly. It is open to one of them also to sue for possession but he must join the other co-owners as defendants and the decree will be for joint possession and not in favour of the plaintiff only. See case of Khalique Ahmed v. Abdul Ghani and another (PLD 1973 SC 214). It has been held in case reported as Mst. Settan and others v. Mirza (KLR 1998 Civil Cases 225) that, "In the absence of co-owners/co-sharers suit for possession could not proceed. In case reported as Muhammad Aslam and 2 others v. Amir Muhammad Khan (deceased) through legal Heirs and 13 others (PLJ 2001 Lahore 133), it has been held that "Co-sharers would be entitled to transfer specific khasra numbers under their exclusive possession to petitioners and they would continue in possession till partition of joint khata inasmuch as, petitioners (vendees) stepped into shows of vendors as co-sharers". In this case, respondent No,1 had acted in good faith by taking into all reasonable care to ascertain title of his vendor who was continued to be the owner in the Revenue Record to be owner of the land. In this view of the matter, the sale in his favour was protected under section 41 of Transfer of Property Act as held in case reported as Talb Hussain v.
Babu Muhammad Shafi and 12 others (PLD 1987 Lah. 4). The judgment of the learned Civil Judge was result of misreading of Revenue Record placed by the parties on the file and result of misinterpretation of law. The mistake has been rectified by the learned Additional District Judge through well-reasoned judgment dated 25-1-2001 which needs no interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Resultantly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.