JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioners/plaintiffs impugn the appellate decree dated 18-12- 2000 whereby the decree of the learned trial Court dated 8-12-1987 was set aside and the declaratory suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. The facts of the ease are straightforward. The parties are related inter se being the lineal descendents of one Samail. Samail had two sons, the first, namely, Hadoo, is the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners. Hadoo had a son, namely, Zaida. The other son of Samail is Dadoo, who had a daughter, namely, Mukhtaran. Zaida was married to Mst. Mukhtaran.
3. Both brothers, Hadoo and Dadoo, jointly owned 903 Kanals, 4 Marlas of land as per Jamabandi for the year 1930-31 in Chak Miana Gondal in Mandi Bahauddin. It is not disputed that the family was governed by customary law. On 1-10-1931 Dadoo gifted 339 Kanals, 4 Marlas out of the said land to his daughter Mst. Mehran (predecessor-in---interest of respondents/defendants) vide gift Mutation No.1036 (Exh.P.4). This mutation was challenged by Dadoo brother of Hadoo, who filed a declaratory suit asserting that the gift was invalid to the extent it affected his reversionary rights after the death of Dadoo. Both Dadoo and Mehran were impleaded as defendants in the suit. The suit was compromised between the parties whereby the gift in favour of Mst. Mehran to the extent of 16 acres was maintained while the gift for the remaining area was cancelled. A decree dated 29- 2-1932 (Exh.P.1) was made out reflecting the compromise.
4. At this point it is relevant to note that the decree was not reflected in the Revenue Record and consequently the entry therein based on Mutation No.1036 (Exh.P.4) continued to remain on the record. When Mst. Mehran died, her legal heirs (the respondents herein) obtained inheritance Mutation No.2215 (Exh.P.5) which was sanctioned on 13-3-1946. In view of the fact that the decree (Exh.P.1) had not been reflected in the Revenue Record, the inheritance mutation (Exh.P.5) was made in respect of the entire 339 Kanals, 4 Marlas covered in gift Mutation No.1036 (Exh.P.4).
5. According to the petitioners they only became aware of the mutation (Exh.P.5) when consolidation proceedings were undertaken in the village. They thereafter filed their declaratory suit to assail the inheritance mutation (Exh.P.5). Their case simply put, was that the decree (Exh.P.1), dated 29-2-1932 was conclusive between the parties and, as per terms of this decree, Mst. Mehran was only entitled to 16 acres and nothing in excess thereof. The plea of the petitioners/plaintiffs was accepted by the learned trial Court, which as a result, decreed their suit.
6. The learned Appellate Court has, however, non-suited the petitioners on two grounds. Firstly it has held that the suit filed by the petitioners was meant to challenge consolidation proceedings and, therefore, the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. According to the learned Appellate Court, the matter could only be adjudicated by a Revenue Court. This finding is not legally tenable because the dispute between the parties related to title. In the circumstances, the learned Civil Court alone had jurisdiction to adjudicate in the matter.
7. Secondly, it was held by the learned Appellate Court that the suit was time-barred. This finding was based on the fact that the petitioners had not obtained implementation of the decree (Exh.P.1) in the Revenue Record and had also not challenged the inheritance mutation (Exh.P.5) within the period of six years prescribed by Article 120 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. This finding is also contrary to the law. It is the decree (Exh.P.1) which determined the entitlement of the petitioners.
Whether the same was reflected in the Revenue Record or not, is of no legal consequence. Here it may be, observed that the Revenue Record does not create or extinguish title. It is merely meant to reflect title which otherwise has been acquired by a person. Any inaccuracy in the Revenue Record, does not, by itself, affect the title of owners such as the legal representatives of Hadoo. This is particularly so because there was no dispute or challenge to the title asserted by the petitioners/plaintiffs. Therefore, on the question of limitation also the appellate decree is not sustainable.
8. Before parting with this judgment I need to note that although the decree (Exh.P.1) dated 29-2- 1932 refers to 16 Kanals as the area given to Mst. Mehran, it is not in contention that the actual area given to Mst. Mehran as absolute owner was 16 acres. This is evident from the statements of Hadoo and Dadoo which formed the basis of the consent decree (Exh.P.1).
9. In the foregoing circumstances, the appellate decree dated 18-12-2000 is set aside. The decree of the learned trial Court, dated 8-12-1987 is affirmed and the inheritance mutation (Exh.P.5) is set aside except in respect of 16 acres which was the exclusive property of Mst. Mehran.
10. This revision petition is allowed in the above terms.