SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--- The case of the petitioners as set out in the plaint is that predecessor of plaintiffs/petitioners namely Nawab was owner of land in Village Kot Moj Din, while predecessors of respondents Nos.1 to 5 namely Ali Muhammad was owner of land in Village Dharowal. Former exchanged his land with the latter in Dharowal through Mutation No.3193. Mutation of exchange of the land in Village Moj Din was sanctioned vide Mutation No.380. Resultantly, entire holding of the predecessor of respondents Nos.3 to 5 in Village Dharowal transferred to the petitioners and respondents Nos.1 to 5 became landless. Some Khasra numbers in Village Dharowal could not entered in the mutation of exchange, but mistake of Patwari. These Khasra numbers remained in the name of respondents Nos.1 to 5. While taking illegal advantage of the mistake, respondent No.1 through Sale-Deed No.330, dated 23-1-1990 alienated this property (detailed in para. No.4 of the plaint) to respondents Nos.6 and 7. The petitioner's claim that respondents have no right to alienate the property of the petitioners and sale in question is illegal and void and the sale is inoperative against the rights of the petitioner. The petitioners filed suit for declaration on respondents' refusal to accede to the lawful claim of the petitioners. Respondents contested the suit; controverted the assertions of the plaint; respondents Nos.1 to 5 jointly filed written statement and respondents Nos.6 and 7 filed separate written statement. It was asserted by the respondents that land in question was never part of exchange and was rightly disposed of. Various preliminary objections were raised, that suit is time-barred; that Court lacks jurisdiction; plaintiffs have no locus standi and the respondents Nos.6 and 7 purchased the property for valuable consideration without notice.
2. Learned trial Court framed 10 issues, out of divergent pleas of the parties and thereafter the parties led their respective evidence. Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 9-12-1993. The appeal against the decree was filed and the learned Appellate Court while accepting the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree, vide judgment and decree, dated 14-11-1998, hence this petition against judgment at variance.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the exchange was regarding total land of respondents Nos.1 to 5 and after the exchange, respondents Nos.1 to 5 became landless in the village. Learned counsel submitted that Imam Bakhsh who was owner of 110 Kanals and 19 Marlas, which after his death devolved upon his two sons namely Nawab Khan and Hakim Din. Each inherited 55 Kanals, 9 Marlas. Issues of Hakam Din, namely Wali Muhammad, Muhammad Hussain and Rabia sold their share in land, to Nawab Din through registered sale-deed, dated 9-9-1975 and Mutation No.3089 in this respect was attested on 5-4-1977. Nawab Din became owner of 83 Kanals and 5 Marlas. Land measuring 27 Kanals, 14 Marlas remained in the ownership of other issues of Hakim Ding namely Nazar Mahmood, Ali Mahmood and Sakina. Nawab Khan and Nazar Mahmood etc. Exchanged their land measuring 35 Kanals and 19 Marlas with Karam Dad and others through Exchange No.460 dated 26-1-1978 (Mutation No.3143) i.e. Exh.P.10. Through this exchange land in the name of Nawab Khan and Nazar Mehmood and others was reduced to the extent of 18 Marlas.
Nawab Khan became owner of 82 Kanals and 10 Marlas and Nazar Mahmood, Ali Muhammad and Sakina became owners of 27 Kanals, 10 Marlas. Nazar Muhammad, Ali Muhammad and Sakina exchanged their land measuring 27 Kanals, 14 Marlas with Nawab Khan through Exchange No.3193 dated 6-6-1981 (Exh.P.1) and as' such, Nazar Muhammad etc. Became landless in Village Dharowal.
It has been argued by the learned' counsel that sale of 3 Kanals, 10 Marlas through sale-deed, dated 23-1-1990 (Exh.P.3) is void as the vendor had no valid title to sell the said land. Learned counsel has further contended that plea of respondents Nos.6 and 7 that they are bona fide purchaser cannot get the benefit of section 41 of Transfer of Property Act for various reasons: Firstly they have not made a proper inquiry qua the mutation of exchange, respondents Nos.1 to 5 became landless, secondly, respondents Nos.1 to 5 were not ostensible owners on the basis of principle laid down in the case of Choghata v. Fazal Din 1984 SCMR 1454 and Maulana Riazul Hassan v. Muhammad Ayub Khan 1991 SCMR 2513. To meet the objection of limitation, learned counsel has contended that suit property being joint Khata, plea of limitation cannot be pressed on the basis of principles laid down in the case of Muhammad Bakhsh and 3 others v. Umar and 3 others PLD 1952 Lah. 307 and Abdul Sattar v. Muhammad Ishaq 2004 YLR 50. Learned counsel has added that in such-like cases fresh cause of action arises and in this respect referred to the case of Saleem Akhtar v. Nisar Ahmad PLD 2000 Lah. 385. It was lastly submitted that reasoning advanced in the judgment of the trial Court were not taken into account by the Appellate Court, the impugned judgment stands vitiated on the principle laid down in the cases of Madan Gopal and 4 others v. Maran Bepari and 3 others PLD 1969 SC 617; Alloo v. Sher Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 382 and Mst. Ameer Begum v. Muhammad Naeem Khan PLD 2000 SC 839.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.6 and 7, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment. He has submitted that respondents Nos.6 and 7 are bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice. They purchased suit-land, after consulting the Revenue Record.
Relevant entries in the Revenue Record and delivery of possession of the suit-land sufficiently justify that the inquiry was properly made as to the ownership of vendees regarding suit-land to claim benefit of section 41 of the Transfer of the Property Act. Learned counsel in this respect has placed reliance on the cases of Ijaz Baig and 16 others v. Irshad Baig and 2 otters 2003 CLC 1805; Al-Haj Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Wallayat and 3 others 2000 YLR 2117; Muhammad Zakria and 3 others v. Bashir Ahmad 2001 CLC 595 and Muhammad Aslam v. Rehmat Ali and others 2000 MLD 1459.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.
6. According the petitioners, Imam Bakhsh was owner of land measuring 110 Kanals, 19 Marlas in Village Dharowal. Nawab Khan (predecessor of the petitioners) and Hakim Din (predecessor of respondents Nos.1 to 5) were his two sons who inherited 55 Kanals and 9 Marlas each. Hakim Din had four sons and two daughters. Two sons and a daughter namely Wali Muhammad, Muhammad Hussain and Rabia sold their share to Nawab Khan vide Mutation No.3089 dated 5-4-1977. The other set of legal heirs of Hakim Din namely Nazar Muhammad, Ali Muhammad Hakim Din were left with 27 Kanals and 14 Marlas, being their respective share which they inherited. Their land further reduced and they became the owner of 27 Kanals and 10 Marlas as a result of exchange of' their land with Karam Dad on 26-1-1978. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 and predecessor of respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5 exchanged their land with the petitioners through Exchange No.460 dated 26-1-1978, Mutation No.3193 dated 6-6-1981 (Exh.P.1). Respondents Nos.1 to 5 in this way exchanged their entire land with the petitioners in Village Dharowal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has traced the whole background of land of the predecessor of interest of the petitioners Ali Muhammad and after referring to various transactions, tried to prove that entire land holding of respondents Nos.1 to 5 was alienated. But in the Revenue Record, land measuring 3 Kanals, 10 Marlas remained in the name and in ownership of respondents Nos.1 to 5. The entry remained unchallenged from 6-6-1981 till 30-5-1990 (date of filing the suit). The manner of calculation of land adopted by the petitioners, is of no avail to the petitioner: firstly, the petitioners have not produced the relevant record to support this contention during trial of the suit; secondly no effort to rectify the mistake was made for 9 years and thirdly, during this period the suit-land was sold to the third party who claims protection under section 41 of Transfer of Property Act.
7. Learned Appellate Court after appraising the whole evidence of the parties comprising of Revenue Record and the oral evidence of the parties, reached the conclusion that land measuring 27 Kanals, 13 Marlas was exchanged. Both the parties took possession of the land according to mutation of exchange and there was no deficiency as far as total area of the "property exchanged" is concerned. Each party has taken possession of equal quantity of land. It was further observed in the impugned judgment that the petitioners have failed to mention or state any specific Khasra numbers, which were omitted to be incorporated in the exchange deed. P.W. Failed to mention any Khasra number or Khatooni number. Patwari was not produced as witness to explain his noting.
Learned Court then held that suit property was not part of exchange and was validly sold to respondents Nos.6 and 7.
8. It is evident from the Revenue Record that respondents Nos.1 to 5 are owners in possession of the suit property. The mutation of exchange was sanctioned in presence of the petitioners and admittedly no objection or claim with regard to the land measuring 3 Kanals, 10 Marlas was either made or lodged. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, that respondents Nos.6 and 7 have not conducted sufficient inquiry with regard to the suit-land has no force. A purchaser has to make a reasonable inquiry and it is not expected from a purchaser to examine the entries of mutation like an expert. Respondents Nos.6 and 7 were not obliged to inquire and scrutinize the detail of various transfers with regard to the suit property arrived at by the petitioners and respondents Nos.1 to 5. The property being an agricultural property and the entry of the ownership of the vendors existed for the past many decades, without any objection or challenge, was sufficient evidence for respondents Nos.6 and 7 to ascertain the title of the vendors. Respondents Nos.6 and 7 were given possession and no objection was raised at the time of handing over the possession. Respondents Nos.6 and 7 were not obliged to go behind the Revenue Record and make further intricate inquiries regarding transaction of exchange, Respondents Nos.6 and 7 have purchased land against a valid consideration and took all reasonable care. The petitioners have failed to rebut through cogent evidence the bona fides of the vendees. The rights of respondents Nos.6 and 7 are protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.
9. The impugned transfer of the suit-land to the respondents Nos.6 and 7 by virtue of provisions of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act are protected and such sale is not open to challenge.
10. The decree of the Appellate Court in favour of respondents is unexceptionable and thus, I am not persuaded to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree in my revisional ,jurisdiction to unsettle the same.
11. For the foregoing, this petition has no merit, therefore, the same is dismissed.