' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---This petition was admitted to regular hearing for the reasons recorded in the admitting order dated 2-6-2006. The relevant part of the above order is for completeness, reproduced hereunder:-- ' "The petitioners are the legal representatives of Muhammad Khan and Fazal Karim, while the respondents are the legal representatives of Raj Wali.
2. The respondents filed a suit to challenge a mutation of sale No,1712 (Exh.P.6) sanctioned on 30-9- 1948 whereby Raj Wali sold the suit-land measuring 4 Kanals, 9 Marlas to the above named Muhammad Khan and Fazal Karim. It was their case that no sale had been effected by Raj Wall.
The suit was resisted by the petitioners-defendants who claimed title on the basis of the aforesaid mutation (Exh. P.6).
3. The learned trial Court framed as many as seven issues based on the pleadings of the parties.
However, Issues Nos.1 and 3 are dispositive of the present petition. These issues were framed in the following terms:--
1. Whether the plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 to 7 are the owner of the suit property? OPP.
3. Whether the Mutation No,1712 dated 30-9-1948 in favour of defendants Nos.1 to 3 is illegal, void, fictitious and forged and ineffective upon the orders of the plaintiff and defendants Nos.4 to 7? OPP.
4. It was, for the respondents as plaintiffs to prove both issues. Both Courts below have concurrently decreed the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs. The reasons which have prevailed with the learned Courts are set out in paragraph 9 of the appellate judgment, which is reproduced as under:- "(9) The Mutation No, 1712 dated 30-9-1948 Exh.D.2 is disputed one. The respondents/plaintiffs alleged fraud and after alleging the fraud the onus of the issues shifted to present appellants. It is well settled principle of law that mutation is not title creating document. It is maintained just to make the revenue record up to date. Mere producing Exh.D.2 in the evidence does not mean that the present appellants discharged their onus. They had to prove Exh.D.2 through oral evidence by producing attesting witnesses and the witnesses of the bargain but the present appellants failed to produce any - witness relating to the transaction of the disputed mutation Exh.D.2. Rehmat All as D.W.1 categorically admitted in the cross-examination that neither transaction was struck down in his presence, nor any consideration amount was passed in his presence. He also admitted that he was not present at the time of proceedings of the mutation, therefore, in these circumstances, his evidence is of no evidentiary value and does not lend any support to the case of the present appellants. Now the statement of Fazal Karim one of the appellants as DMA is on the file but he never asserted in his statement that any sale transaction was concluded in his presence. In absence of attesting witnesses or Lumberdar the mutation cannot be considered to be proved and I hold that appellants could not discharge their onus regarding the bona fide purchase of the suit- land, therefore, I hold that the learned. Trial Court has rightly decided Issue No,3 in favour of respondents/plaintiffs being illegal, void, inefficient quo upon their right."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the mutation (Exh.P.6) was sanctioned almost 46 years before the filing of the suit and was entered in the register of mutations by official functionaries in the ordinary course of their duties. On this basis it was submitted that a presumption of correctness attached to the mutation in question. Additionally, the Jamabandies subsequent to 1948 also showed the names of Muhammad Khan and Fazal Karim as the owners, of the suit property. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the learned Courts below were not justified in holding that the petitioners were required to produce the witnesses of the mutation or the witnesses in whose presence the bargain of sale had been struck.
The evidence also shows that Ahmad Ali, Lumberdar, who was shown as present as a witness at the time the mutation was sanctioned, .Had died.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that in view of the long standing entries in the revenue record a heavy onus lay on the respondents to prove that the mutation (Exh.P.6) had been procured fraudulently or that the same had been entered without the consent of Raj Wali.
7. In addition to the above, it is shown from the record that although Raj Wali lived for almost twenty years after the mutation (Exh.P.6), he neither challenged the said mutation nor did he move for redemption of a mortgage of the suit property which had earlier been created in favour of the same Muhammad Khan and Fazal Karim on 13-3-1947 as per Mutation No,1606."
2. On 21-9-2006, the following order was passed:-- ' "Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs has pointed out that in actual fact, the revenue record since 1948 showed the names of Fazal Karim and Muhammad Khan as mortgages only and not as owners. He also pointed out that the mutation (Exh.P.6) was only implemented in the revenue record in 1993.
2. The basic question, which needs to be decided, is as to whether the mutation (Thth.P.6) was duly and properly sanctioned or not. I would like to examine the -original mutation (Ehx.P.6) as well as Mutation No,1606 and the rapts in respect of both mutations in the Rozmancha waqiati, in addition, the two Jamabandies, immediately succeeding 1948, shall also be produced in Court. The Tehsildar concerned shall ensure that the said record is available in Court on the next date of hearing."
3. I have examined the original Revenue Record. The Jamabandi for 1947-48 and, in particular, Column No,13 thereof. From the same it is apparent that reference to Mutation No,1712 has been entered in red ink which even to the naked eye appears to be fresh and much brighter than the references made in Column No,13. B to Mutation No,1809 and Mutations Nos.1810 and 1812. The handwriting in respect of Mutation No,1712 is also different from the handwriting of the three other mutations referred to above. These are material circumstances which support the concurrent decrees of the learned Courts below.
4. In addition to the above, the Khasra Girdawaris (Exh.P.1 to Exh.P.9) produced on record also show the c petitioners as cultivators in their capacity as morgagees and not as owners of the suit property.
5. In the foregoing circumstances the authenticity of Mutation No, 1712 becomes questionable.
6. There is another important aspect of the case. The petitioners have not impleaded Azam Hussain, one of the plaintiffs, as respondent in this revision petition. I also note that the said Azam Hussain was not arrayed as a respondent even in the appeal which was preferred by the petitioners in the District Court. In the circumstances, the appeal and also the E present revision petition are not competent. Here it may be added that the decree dated 29-9-2001 passed by the learned trial Court was indivisible as it declared the plaintiffs to be owners of the suit property. The said decree, which has attained finality against Azam Hussain, cannot be bifurcated even if the petitioners establish a good case on merits. Reference for this legal proposition can be made to the case titled Mst. Murad Begumetc. v. Muhammad Rafiq etc. (PLD 1974 SC 322) and the case titled Mst. Maqbool Begum etc. v. Gullan and others (PLD 1982 SC 46).
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no justification for interfering in the concurrent decrees passed by the learned Courts below. This revision, as a consequence, is dismissed.