' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The respondents were proceeded against ex parte on 13-10-2005. Even today none has appeared on their behalf although the names of their learned counsel duly appear in the cause list.
2. Noor Muhammad etc. Petitioners/ plaintiffs impugn the concurrent decrees of the learned trial Court dated 17-1-1994 and of the learned appellate Court dated 14-12-2000 whereby a declaratory suit filed by them has been dismissed.
3. Although the record of the case is voluminous, the facts necessary for its disposal are simple. The petitioners/ plaintiffs claim to be owners in possession of the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. They impugn the sale-deed (Exh . D .W . /1) dated 13-11-1983 whereby Ch. Muhammad Bukhsh (respondent No,1/defendant) purportedly purchased 8 Kanals, 18 Marlas out of the aforesaid land from respondents Nos.2 to 11 who are the legal heirs of two persons, namely, Bulanda and Moti respectively. According to the plaintiffs, they had purchased the entire holding of Bulanda and Moti in a joint Khata through two registered sale-deeds. The sale-deed (Exh.P.21) by Bulanda on 7-7-1967 clearly mentions that through the said sale the entire land holding of Bulanda stood conveyed to the petitioners and that as a result Bulanda did not remain owner of any land in the village.
4. Notwithstanding the conveyance of the land by Bulanda in favour of the petitioners, his daughter Mst. Zainab Bibi (respondent No,2) and his two sisters Mst. Allah Rakhi (respondent No,3) and Mst.
Suban Bibi (respondent No,4) obtained sanction of inheritance Mutation No,5221 (Exh.D.W.2/1) on 14-9-1983. It appears that the mutation was sanctioned because the Revenue Record had not been correctly prepared to reflect the sale made by Bulanda through sale-deed (Exh. P . 21).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners rightly argued that the revenue entries merely contain a record of title. The creation or extinguishment of title in the case of Bulanda took place through the sale-deed (Exh. P.21). I am, therefore, not in any doubt that respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 could not claim inheritance of the disputed land from Bulanda because Bulanda had ceased to be owner thereof.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next took me through sale-deed (Exh.P.3) dated 3-9-1960 whereby Moti had sold 8 Kanals, 6 Marlas of land to them.
' However, in the Revenue Record only 2 Kanals, 13 Marlas were shown as having been conveyed to the petitioners. There is a note appearing in the Revenue Record (Exh.P.l) that if the conveyance had been properly reflected and the balance area of 5 Kanals, 13 Marlas had also been mutated in the names of the petitioners, the record would have shown that Moti no longer retained any interest in the suit property.
7. The learned Courts below, unfortunately, have only gone by the Revenue Record without appreciating that the same does not operate to create or extinguish title. The effect of the sale- deed (Exh.P.21) executed by Bulanda and the sale-deed (Exh.P.3) executed by Moti the two predecessors-in-interest of the vendors (respondents Nos.2 to 11), has not been taken note of by the learned Courts below.
8. In addition to the above, there is yet another aspect of the case which supports the petitioners/plaintiffs. Ali Muhammad, one of the petitioners, appeared as P.W.2. He clearly stated that since the time of purchase of the suit property by the petitioners/plaintiffs they were in continuous possession thereof. Muhammad Bukhsh, who contested the suit on the basis of the sale-deed (Exh.D.W.1/1) executed in his favour by respondents Nos.2 to 11, appeared in support of his case as D.W.1. He acknowledged that he had purchased the property from the respondents/vendors who were the legal heirs of Bulanda and Moti respectively. He admitted that the land was in possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs and also could not say if the disputed land had ever been in the possession of the respondents/vendors. It is thus, clearly established from the available evidence that the petitioners were in occupation of the suit-land. This fact also corroborates the case of the petitioners; but has not been dealt with by the learned Courts below.
9. In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned decrees are a result of non-reading and material misreading of the evidence adduced on record. The said decrees are, therefore, not sustainable and are set aside. As a result, the suit of the petitioners is decreed as prayed for. They shall also be entitled to their costs throughout.