' M.A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J.--Mst. Iqbal Bibi, Mst. Surrayya Bibi, Mst. Razia Bibi and Mst. Saleeman Bibi, daughters of Karam Din have directed the above-noted two Revision Petitions against a consolidated judgment and decree dated 19-10-2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal, whereby he set aside the judgment and decree dated 11-7-2002 of the learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Narowal in two civil suits bearing Nos.290 and 291 of 2000, filed by both the parties against each other.
2. The dispute relates to 11-Kanals and 12 Marlas of land, which formed a parcel of land measuring 67 Kanals and 12 Maras situated in Mouza Mangowal, Tehsil and District Narowal, which was initially allotted on 5-11-1981 to Karam Din, a displaced person from Azad Jammu and Kashmir for subsistence. Its proprietary rights were conferred upon Karam Din, his wife Masooman, present four petitioners and Muhammad Amin through Mutation No,54. Immediately thereafter, Muhammad Amin sold his share of the land to Noor Din and Muhammad Siddique-respondents through a registered sale-deed dated 29-11-1982 (Exh.P.1), which is the subject-matter of disputed land. This transaction was given effect in the Revenue Record through Mutation No,64, dated 27-7-1983 (Exh.P.10). Mst. Masooman, the widow and four daughters, the present petitioners objected to the validity of Mutation No,54. The objection was sustained and the name of Muhammad Amin was deleted. Feeling aggrieved Noor Din and Muhammad Din filed a suit for declaration. Their claim was that Muhammad Amin being real brother and family member of Karam Din was rightly granted the proprietary rights in respect of the land in dispute, which they purchased through a valid sale. The present petitioners also filed a separate suit for declaration claiming to be owner- inpossession of 67 Kanals and 20 Marlas of the land and denying the claim of Muhammad Amin.
Both these suits were consolidated and the parties were put on trial on the following issues:--
(1) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD
(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
(3) Whether the order of A.C. Dated 14-11-1983 and 30-9-1986 are illegal, void and ineffective as against the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP
(4) Whether the plaintiffs are owner in possession of suit property? OPP (5-A) Whether the suit Iqbal Bibi v. Noor Din etc. (756/89) is not maintainable? OPD (5-B) Whether the plaintiffs in Suit No,756/89 are estopped to institute the suit by words and conduct? OPD (5-C) Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the Suit No,756/89?
(5-D) Whether the disputed Mutation No,54 dated 5-11-1981 and 64 dated 27-6-1987 are void, against the rights of the plaintiff Iqbal Bibi and defendants in the suit Noor Din v. Province of Punjab Suit No,756/89? OPP (5-E) Whether Muhammad Amin deceased was ever in existence? If so, whether he was real brother of Karam Din and whether his name was included in Farad Taqseem? OPP (6). Relief.
3. The evidence was brought on the record from both the sides and ultimately the suit filed by the present petitioners was decreed by the learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 17-3- 1993. On appeal this decree was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court with an additional Issue No,5-E. After allowing the parties to adduce additional evidence on this issue, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that Noor Din and Muhammad Siddique were not in possession of the disputed land as such their suit was not in proper form. Similarly, other issues including Issue No,5-E were also found against them. Accordingly, their suit was dismissed vide judgment and decreed dated 11-7-2002. They preferred two separate appeals, which the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal was pleased to accept vide a consolidated judgment dated 19- 10-2002. Resultantly, the suit filed by Noor Din and Muhammad Siddique was decreed, against the present petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the findings of the learned trial Court on Issues Nos.2 and 5-E with vehemence. He argued that Karam Din predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was registered as a Jammu and Kashmir refugee with seven members of his family and the name of Muhammad Amin was not included in the Fard Taqseem (Exh.D.1) maintained in the office of Jammu and Kashmir refugee Rathian, District Jhelum as such the 'addition of Muhammad Amin in Fard Taqseem prepared by the Patwari being the result of forgery and collusion, is of no consequence. As against that, the learned counsel for the respondents, relying upon the copy of the register of the temporary allotment to refugee of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Exh.P.3), the report of Patwari made on the application of Karam Din (Exh.P.4), Farad Taqseem (Exh.P.5) prepared by Mouza Mangowal and other documents, contended that the family of Karam Din consisted of eight persons, which included Muhammad Amin as the brother of Karam Din.
6 (sic). I have considered the arguments and have gone the record. The land in dispute was allotted to the refugees of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, who were registered as such with Jammu and Kashmir Refugees Department at Jhelum. Exh.D.1, Exh.D.3 and Exh.D.4 are the certified copies of Fard Taqseem of the original record maintained at Jhelum Office. The name of Muhammad Amin is not reflected in it. In this view of the matter, the Fard Taqseem and the subsequent entries in the Revenue Record of Mouza Mangowal being inconsistent with the original record of the refugees cannot be considered as credible and given preference. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the affidavit of Mst. Masooman dated 17-5-1981 (Exh.P.12) and the application dated 29-3-1954 (Exh.P.13) moved on behalf of Karam Din showing the number of the family of Karam Din as eight appears to have been interpolated. Muhammad Amin might have been the brother of Karam Din but he was not registered as a member of his family. Thus, the Revenue Department was not legally justified to include his name through the Fard Taqseem prepared by the Patwari Halqa. The finding of the learned Additional District Judge on Issue No,5-E, being based on conjectures, cannot be sustained. The learned trial Court had rightly based its finding on the original record of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Refugees Department. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside with the result that the finding of the learned trial Court on this issue remains intact. I, therefore, accept both the petitions and set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal, dated 19-10- 2002. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs shall hold the field.
Revision .