JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI.J.- Through the present civil revision, the petitioner has called in question judgment and decree dated 18.6.2002 of the learned Addl. District Judge. Bhakkar whereby appeal of the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 20.1.2001 of the learned Civil Judge, Bhakkar was accepted and the suit of the respondents were decreed.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the suit for declaration by the respondents have been recounted in detail in the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.6.2002 of the learned Addl.
District Judge, Bhakkar as well as in that of the learned Civil Judge, Bhakkar. However, concisely stating the admitted facts are that Hassu s/o Hussan sold 4 kanals of land equivalent to 4/29th shares from Khata No. 35 Khasra No. 508 totally measuring 29 kanals of land in village Bharmi Chiragh Shah, Tehsil & District Bhakkar. The sale mutation bearing No. 556 was sanctioned on 13.6.1956. Hassu died in 1970-71 and till his death he had not raised a claim against the petitioner.
The dispute was however raised on 28.7.1997 by the respondents as the successors- in-interest of Hassu through their suit for declaration questioning the entries in Jamabandis of year 1956-57 and onward in favour of the petitioner to have been fraudulently entered. As per the pleadings of the respondents plaintiffs, claiming title to the suit land, their predecessor-in-interest Hassu sold only 4 kanals of land (4/29th shares) from Khasra No. 508 (totally measured 29 kanaisy. And that after the sale Mutation No. 556 was sanctioned on 13.6.1956, the entire 29 kanals of Khasra No. 508 was wrongly entered in the Jamabandis for the years 1956-57 onwards in the name of the petitioner showing him as the owner in possession of the entire 29 kanals.
3. The petitioner in his Contesting written statement admitted purchase of four kanals of land through the above-referred mutation dated 13.6.1956 from Hassu and thus became the owner in possession of the entire 29 kanals located in Khasra No. 508 (because he was the owner in possession of the remaining 25 kanals and not Hassu).
4. Issues were framed. Evidence was recorded. The learned Civil Judge, Bhakkar through judgment and decree dated 21 1:2001 dismissed the suit of the respondents plaintiffs who appealed thereagainst. The learned first Appellate Court through judgment and decree dated 18.6.2002 reversed the above-said judgment of the learned Civil Judge on acceptance of the appeal of the respondent-plaintiff and decreed their suit. Hence the present civil revision.
5. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 have not appeared despite their personal service. They are, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
6. The learned counsel for the parties reiterated the pleadings of the parties and read out the entire evidence on record.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the entire record. There is no dispute that Hassu i.e. Predecessor-in-interest of the respondents plaintiffs sold only 4 kanals of land out of Khasra No. 508 to the petitioner and Mutation No. 556, dated 13.6.1956 was sanctioned thereupon, It is also an admitted fact that since this mutation, the entire 29 kanals of land comprising Khasra No. 508 was entered in the name of the petitioner in the Registers Haq Daran-e- Zameen/Jamabandis including that for the years 1956-57 (Exh. P-2), the years 1961-62 (Exh. P- 4), the years 1964-65 (Exh. P-5), the years 1968-69 (Exh. P- 6), the years 1977-78 (Exh. P-7), the years 1984-85 (Exh. P- 8), the years 1989-90 (Exh. P-9) and for the years 1993-94 (Exh. P-TO) -
8. The entries showing the petitioner to have become the owner in possession of the entire 29 kanals comprising in Khasra No. 508 upon purchase of 4 kanals were thus in consonance with the pleadings of the petitioner and the deposition of the petitioner as DW-1 wherein he clearly and categorically stated that he previously was the owner in possession of 25 kanals in Khasra No. 508 and that upon purchase of remaining 4 kanals from this Khasra, he became owner of the entire 29 kanals of the land. Exh. P-2 to Exh. P-10 (copies of the Jamabandis) prove that on purchase of 4 kanals of land per mutation No. 556, dated 13.6.1956 and on giving effect thereto immediately, the petitioner became the owner in possession of the entire land of 29 kanals in Khasra No. 508. This is also an undisputed fact that Hassu during his life-time did not challenge the 'Jamabandis which gave effect to the mutation dated 13.6.1956 immediately upon incorporation of Chahaar Saala Jamabandi/Register Haq Daran-e-Zameen of the years 1956-57 (Exh. P-2). The learned counsel for the respondents admitted that since the date of mutation, the petitioner was in possession of the suit land. And that the entries in Jamabandis were made in favour of the petitioner as the owner in possession thereof. The learned counsel for the respondents also admitted that the predecessor- in-interest of the respondents plaintiffs i.e. Hassu son of Hussan, till death, did not challenge the entries thereof. But he claimed that the petitioner was paying Hisa Batai to the respondents plaintiffs. The explanation given by the learned counsel for the respondents plaintiffs is of-course neither plausible nor acceptable, It was rejected through valid and cogent reasons by the learned Civil Judge on the basis of the documentary evidence (Exh. P-i tc Exh. P. 10). Had a fraud been committed by the petitioner, it is inconceivable that Hassu s/o Hussan would not challenge the same during 14 to 15 years of his life after 1956-57 when the impugned Jamabandi was entered in the name of the petitioner, It was after the death of Hassu that the respondents plaintiffs filed their suit for declaration. The respondents plaintiffs have not been able to show through any cogent evidence or through any documentary evidence that the petitioner was not the owner in possession of 25 kanals of land in Khasra No. 508 prior to the incorporation of Mutation No. 556, dated 13.6.1956 (Exh. P-3).
9. Furthermore, the suit was filed by the respondents plaintiffs in 1997 after a period of 40 years to challenge the entries in the Register Haq Daran-e-Zameen for the years 1956-57. According to Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the limitation for filing of a suit for declaration is 6 years.
Wherefor, the suit was barred by time.
10. The learned first Appellate Court thus committed a material irregularity rejecting the documentary evidence on record and holding that the petitioner was not the owner of the-suit land.
11. In view thereof, this civil revision is accepted with no order as to the costs. The impugned judgment and decree dated 18.6.2002 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhakkar is set aside. The judgment and decree dated 20.1.2001 of the learned Civil Judge shall hold the field and is accordingly restored.
12. Decided as above.