JAWWAD. S. KHAWAJA, J.--- The petitioners purchased the suit land measuring 2 kanals 3 marlas from one Sayee Muhammad vide mutation No. 150 sanctioned on 15.11.1984. This land was comprised in killa No. 6 of square No. 95 and killa Nos. 9 and 10 of square No. 100. On 21.5.1986, Saroo son of Mirza (respondent/plaintiff) filed a suit seeking a declaration that he was exclusive owner of land measuring 162 kanals. The land described in the plaint included the aforesaid 2 kanals 3 marlas claimed by the petitioners. Both Courts below have decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff in its entirety. Hence this revision petition.
2. The learned Courts below have fallen in error on account of misreading of the available documentary evidence. It has been held by the learned Courts below that mutation No. 150 whereby the petitioners purchased the land was based on exchange mutation No. 124 sanctioned on 27.6.1984. Since mutation No. 124 was set aside by the learned Courts below, they concurrently held that mutation No. 150 was also illegally sanctioned.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through mutation No. 150 and mutation No. 123 (Exh. D.2). From a bare perusal of the same it is obvious that the title of their vendor, namely, Sayee Muhammad, was duly shown as co-owner alongwith others, of the disputed land. Mutation No. 123 (Exh. D.2) was based on the order passed by the Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue (Exh.
D.1) dated 15.4.1984 holding that Sayee and others were co-owner of the land in a joint khata.
Unfortunately the learned Courts below have not even noticed mutation No. 123 which clearly shows that Sayee was recorded as co-owners of killa No. 6 in square No. 95 and killa Nos. 9 and 10 in square No. 100 and he was, therefore, entitled to sell the disputed 2 kanals 3 marlas.
4. In the toregoing circumstances, it is clear that the respondent/plaintiff could not have been granted declaration of title in respect of the land measuring 2 kanals 3 marlas which was validly sold by its owner Sayee in favour of the petitioners. The impugned decrees being a result of misreading of evidence are not legally sustainable in so far as the same relate to the area of 2 kanals 3 marlas. The impugned decrees are, therefore, set aside to the extent of the said land.
Civil revision .