MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- This revision petition and the connected Revision Petition No.48 of 1998 are directed against a single judgment in appeal whereby the learned Appellate Court accepted the same, set aside the judgment of the learned trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs Fazal Ahmad etc. Hence through this common judgment both the revision petitions are being decided.
2. This is a typical case of misuse of official authority by the Revenue officials, particularly the Patwari. Certain property was owned in the year 1925-26 by Abdul Mutlib (one half share), Ali Ahmad and Fazal Ahmad one half share, Ali Ahmad had sold his share through a registration deed dated 4-3-1929 and Mutation No.216, dated 20-1-1931 was attested thereupon whereby out of there Khasra numbers measuring 59 Kanals, 13 Marlas, 1/4th share of Ali Ahmad measuring 14 Kanals, 18 Marlas was transferred in favour of Abdul Mateen Khan. Vide a subsequent Mutation No.366. Abdul Mutlib had also sold his entitlement of half share in the suit property measuring 29 Kanals, 16 Marlas to the said Abdul Mateen Khan on 26-3-1931. While incorporating the said mutation in the next Jamabandi of 1932-33, the Patwari played the trick. The share of Abdul Mutlib and Ali Ahmad was shown in the name of Abdul Mateen Khan but the property of Fazal Ahmad was also shown to have been transferred in the name of Abdul Mateen Khan and he has been shown as the original owner to the extent of half share and `Malik Qabza' to the extent of remaining half share. However, the name of Fazal Ahmad was mentioned in the column of ownership along with Abdul Mutlib being a sharer in the Shamilat only. This position continued in the next Jamabandi of 1936-37. In the Jamabandi of 1940-41 the name of Abdul Mutlib disappeared as he had expired and his inheritance Mutation No.944 was attested on 20-5-1938 and thereafter both the brothers Fazal Ahmad and Ali Ahmad were mentioned in the column of ownership of both the Khasra numbers but to the extent of their share in Shamilat. In the meanwhile, Abdul Mateen Khan believing himself to be the exclusive owner sold the entire Khasra No.1286 measuring 34 Kanals, 1 Marla to Abdul Khaliq Khan vide Mutation No.738 attested on 13-6-1935. Abdul Khaliq Khan gifted the said property to his three sons namely Mir Muhammad, Pir Muhammad and Shah Jehan vide gift Mutation No.1549 dated 15-5-1947 and subsequently after 1971 there has been several transfer mutations.
The said Fazal Ahmad instituted a suit on 3-7-1988 claiming his 1/4th share in two Khasra Nos.1321 and 1286 only. This suit was contested by different sets of respondents and after recording the evidence, Ale learned Civil Judge Takht Bhai vide his judgment and decree dated 11-6-1996 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with regard to the said two Khasra numbers but held him entitled to the proportionate share in Shamilat relating to the said two Khasra numbers. An appeal was filed by the plaintiff which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge Mardan at Takht Bhai on 20-12-1997, whereby the judgment of the learned Appellate Court was set aside and suit of the plaintiff was decreed as prayed for. This appellate judgment has been challenged in this revision petitioners by two set of defendants.
3. I have listened to the arguments on behalf of the parties and scrutinized the record.
4. Fazal Ahmad, plaintiff/respondent, was certainly the owner of 1 /4th share in the suit property and he had neither sold nor alienated his share in the said Khasra numbers to anybody. The entries in the Revenue Record were confusing whereby his name appeared in the column of ownership of the suit property throughout and the nice distinction B whether he was recorded as the owner in the Khasra number or as owner in Shamilat on the basis of said entry could not be noticed-by a layman. A fraud has thus, been committed by the Revenue officials and his title has been negated without any act on his behalf but still deceptively he was shown as owner. Any entry in the Revenue Record based on fraud can be challenged any time as no limitation runs against fraud.
5. The contention that the other common property has not been included in the suit has no relevance because it is the choice of the plaintiff to restrict his claim to a particular area. This is no defect in the suit. However, if he subsequently files a similar suit with regard to the remaining property, such subsequent suit shall be barred under Order II, rule 2, C.P.C. However, Mutation No.1048 explains the phenomena whereby he had alienated the rest of the property but the suit Khasra numbers have not been so transferred.
6. There is no denial of the fact that the rights of so many innocent persons are likely to be affected by the impugned judgment which was based on a suit instituted by the plaintiff Fazal Ahmad after a long slumber of sixty years. The two phrases, i.e. "limitation does not run against fraud" and "each new Jamabandi creates a fresh cause of action for the plaintiff" have been frequently misused particularly affecting the right of the innocent purchasers. A purchaser is not likely to notice the defect of the transferor despite every caution and macroscopic scrutiny of the title of the transferor in such-like cases. However, the fact remains that the right of a person cannot be extinguished merely for the reason that property has been further alienated to different owners. Since there is no proof of transfer of rights in the suit property by the plaintiff Fazal Ahmad, therefore, he was entitled to his 1/4th share therein and the learned appellate Court has properly appreciated the evidence and appropriately applied the law. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any defect, hence both the revision petitions are without merits which are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.