Rana Bhagwandas, J.--Office has reported that this -petition is barred by three days. We have gone through the contents of C.M.A. for condonation of delay and the record, which clearly indicates that original petition for leave to appeal was filed in office on 26.4.2005 within a period of 60 days of the impugned judgment. Merely because it was returned with objection for substitution by legible pages within a week's time and the same was filed in office on 9.5.2005 would not render the petition out of time. Office objection is, therefore, rejected and office directed to refrain from submitting incorrect and erroneous submission of notes on the question of limitation.
2. This petition is directed against Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench judgment dated 21.2.2005 whereby respondents' civil revision against concurrent findings of fact arising out of a suit for declaration and specific performance filed by the petitioners were disturbed and the suit dismissed.
3. Petitioners filed a suit for declaration, injunction and alternatively for specific performance of contract against the respondents on the averments that one Zia Naqvi general attorney for Syed Qasim Hussain Shah-Respondent No. 8 herein had made an oral sale of the suit land in their favour, which was recorded in the revenue record through Mutation No. 8 dated 21.9.1967.
Subsequently, vide order dated 7.1.1970, the same was cancelled- by a Revenue Officer, which was challenged in the suit while seeking a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction.
Petitioners also challenged the registered sale-deed dated 20.1.1983 in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 executed by respondent-Manzoor Ahmad acting as general attorney for real owner i.e. Syed Qasim Hussain Shah as being collusive, without consideration and inoperative upon their rights. By way of consequential relief, the petitioners prayed for a permanent injunctive decree against the respondents from interfering with their possession or to create any charge on the disputed land in any manner. Alternatively, petitioners prayed for a decree for specific performance of contract in their favour on the basis of oral sale. Lastly and again as an alternate relief they prayed for a declaration as owners in possession of the suit property by way of adverse possession.
4. The suit was contested by Respondent Nos, 2 to 7 by filing a written statement on 4.12.1984.
Subsequently, they alongwith Respondent No. 8-Syed Qasim Hussain Shah filed amended joint written statement on 11.7.1987 resisting various averments of the petitioners and pleaded that Respondent No. 8 never appointed Zia Naqvi as his general attorney nor any transaction of sale took place between the petitioners and Respondent No. 8. Respondent No, 8 also denied the receipt of any consideration from the petitioners as also getting entered any mutation or appearing before the Revenue Officer admitting the sale in favour of the petitioners. Attestation of mutation in favour of the petitioners was, thus, described as fictitious, fake and fraudulent. Handing over of possession was squarely denied with the averments that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners i.e. Abdur Rashid was in fact occupancy tenant on the land and continued to be in possession thereof. He took undue advantage of his possession and got a fictitious mutation attested in his favour, which was rightly cancelled by a Revenue Officer. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 claimed that Respondent No. 8 had transferred the suit property in their favour for consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- and that they were in possession of the suit land.
5. On the pleadings of the parties as many as 10 issues were struck. Both the parties adduced evidence but neither Zia Naqvi nor Syed Qasim Hussain Shah entered the witness box as Zia Naqvi died a natural death on 6.12.1981. On evaluation of evidence, trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.9.1988 decreed the suit.
6. Judgment and decree were challenged by Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 whereas Respondent No. 8- Syed Qasim Hussain Shah was arrayed as respondent. Their appeal was, however, dismissed by an Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar on 17.6.1991. Both the judgments were assailed in the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, which succeeded with the consequence that both the.judgments of the Courts below were set aside. On his part, learned Single Judge in the High Court held that by reason of non-examination of Zia Naqvi and not bringing any corroborative evidence in support of the oral sale, petitioners utterly failed to prove the transaction of oral sale in their favour. He held that respondents did not adduce even the general power of attorney purportedly executed by Syed Qasim Hussain Shah in favour of Zia Naqvi and, therefore, failed to prove the authority of the attorney to transfer the suit land in their favour. High Court held that there was no independent evidence on record to support the existence of a valid transaction of sale in favour of the petitioners and mere attestation of mutation was not sufficient to declare them as owners of the property. High Court accepted the plea of the respondents supported by Syed Qasim Hussain Shah in the written statement and upheld the sale of the property in favour of contesting respondents. On the question of alternate plea of adverse possession, as prayed by the petitioners, High Court expressed the view that this plea being mutually destructive and inconsistent with the plea of a valid sale in their favour could not be accepted, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Ghularn Qadir v. Ahmad Yar (PLD 1990 S.C. 1049) and Mst. Walayat Jan v.
Habibullah Khan (1992 M LD 751).
7. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Jaffar Hashmi, learned counsel for the petitioners at sufficient length and examined the impugned judgment as well as the record made available.
8. It is vehemently contended that in the face of a valid mutation attested in favour of the petitioners as far back as 21.9.1967 and continuous possession of the suit land with them, High Court is legally not entitled to disturb the findings of fact concurrently recorded by two Courts below; that there is a presumption of correctness in favour of mutation entries in the record of rights, more particularly, when these are followed by entries in the Jamabandi Register coupled 'with possession of the property in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel heavily relied upon Ghulam Rasool v. Chief Administrator or Auqaf (PLD 1971 S.C. 376) and Abdul Ahad v. Roshan Din (PLD 1979 S.C. 890).
9. In Ghulam Rasool's case (supra), it was held by this Court that it is true that entries in the mutation register are by themselves not conclusive evidence of the facts which they purport to record but they are, nevertheless, not an "unimportant part of the testimony as to a fact which is available". This Court further held that the weight and importance to be attached to them is in no way diminished by the fact that they have been allowed by those who were going to be adversely affected by them to remain unaltered for a large number of years, even though they were aware of the entries in the record. The ratio of Abdul Ahad's case (supra) appears to be that a mutation proceeding incorporated in jamabandi carries a presumption of truth.
10.We are in respectful agreement with the proposition laid down by this court in the precedent cases, the facts, however, remains that notwithstanding, presumption of correctness attached to entries in the record of rights by way of mutation, such entries are always rebuttable and open to correction. It has been consistently laid clown by this Court that a mutation, per se, is not a deed of title and is merely indicative of some previous oral sale between the parties. This principle being in view, whenever any mutation is challenged the burden squarely lies on the beneficiaries of the mutation to prove not only the mutation but also the original transaction, which he is required to fall back upon. Since the petitioners utterly failed to independently prove the transaction of sale of the suit land in their favour High Court was perfectly justified in non-suiting them and upholding the cancellation order recorded by Revenue Officer. We are fortified in our view by the cases reported as Muhammad Akram v. Altaf Ahmad (PLD 2003 S.C. 688), Fida Hussain v. Murid Sakina (2004 SCM R 1043), Muhammad Hussain v. Wahid Bakhsh (2004 SCM R 1137), Muhammad Munir v.
Muhammad Saleem (2004 SCM R 1530), Fida Hussain v. Abdul Aziz (PLD 2005 S.C. 343), Arshad Khan v. Resham Jan (2005 SCM R 1859) and Muhammad Afzal v. Matloob Hussain (PLD 2006 S.C. 84).
Principle of law laid down in precedent cases furnishes adequate answer to the argument raised by the learned counsel.
11.Consistent with the law laid down by this Court, we are of the considered view that mutation entries in favour of the petitioners, by themselves, would not confer any right or title upon them. In fact, such entries are entered and sanctioned not for the purpose of record of title in the property and any entry founded on wrong mutation does not have any legal effect on the title to the property.
12.No other point has been raised at the Bar.
13.For the aforesaid facts, circumstances and reasons; there is no merit in this petition, which must fail. Even otherwise no question of law of public importance is spelt out in, the petition. Leave to appeal is, therefore, declined and petition dismissed.