' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 7-7-1981 Fraza, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit against the petitioners. It was stated in the plaint that as per entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1944-45 he was owner of 1/18 share in land measuring 54 Kanals, 14 Marlas comprising Khata No,376/369. Vide Mutation No,1154 attested on 24-5-1946 he purchased the share of his brother, namely, Jewna measuring 3 Kanals, one Marla in the same Khata and thus, became owner of 1/9 share in the said Khata. While preparing Jamabandi for the year 1950-51, Khata No,376 was bifurcated into Khewat No,362 measuring 48 Kanals, 11 Marlas and Khewat No,363 measuring 6 Kanals, 3 Marlas. However, the name of the plaintiff was omitted from the said Khewat No,362. He was, thus, deprived of land measuring 5 Kanals, 8 Marlas being 1/9th share of Khewat No,362. This land was later included in the Khata of Naza, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. These wrong entries continued till 1971.
Consolidation process was effected in the village in the year 1979-80 and because of the said omission, he was deprived of the said land. He came to know about this fact in the year 1981.
According to him, he is continuing in possession of the said land. The new numbers according to the consolidation proceedings were also stated in the plaint. He accordingly prayed for a declaration. The suit was contested by the petitioners. It was objected that the suit is barred by time. However, so far as the said material contents are concerned, there is no specific denial except that the mutation is fictitious and without consideration. Issues were framed. Evidence of the patties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 30-10-1986. A first appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge-I, Bhakkar, on 11-7-1991.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the evidence on record has been misread.
According to him, whereas Fraza was omitted from the Khewat No,362 in 1950-51, Naza was omitted from Khewat No,363. His contention is that the plaintiff ought to have sought a declaration that he is the exclusive owner of the newly created Khewat No,363 measuring 6 Kanals, 3 Marlas. According to him, no land belonging to the plaintiff was allocated to the petitioners in consolidation. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that it is almost an admitted position on record that the plaintiff was owner of 1/9th share in Khewat No,376 and because of the said omission, there has been a shortfall of 5 Kanals, 8 Marlas in his ownership.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Exh.P.8 is the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1944-45. In Khewat No,376 Jewna and Fraza sons of Haider are recorded to be owners of 1/3rd share out of 1/3rd of the said Khewat which comes to 1/9. According to the copy of Mutation No,1152 Jewna transferred his 1/18 share in favour of Fraza. This mutation stands referred to in the remarks column of Exh.P.8. Now Exh.P.9 is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1950-51. Khewat No,376 was bifurcated into Khewats Nos.362 and 363. Khewat No,362 measures 48 Kanals, 11 Marlas and name of Fraza plaintiff is missing. Khewat No,363 measuring 6 Kanals, 3 Marlas and Fraza plaintiff is recorded as owner of 1/9th share therein. This omission' continued in the latter Jamabandi till such time that consolidation took place.
4. Now the only objection raised in the written statement is that the mutation is fictitious. However, nothing turns on the same as Jewna, admittedly, the brother of the plaintiff, never questioned the said mutation. Apart from this, no challenge was thrown to the statement of the plaintiff as P.W.4 and of Abdul Rehman, Patwari, as P.W.1 regarding the said mutation. Similarly, not a word was stated by D.Ws . About the said mutation, I do, therefore, find that the plaintiff was owner of 1/9th share in erstwhile Khewat No,376 measuring 54 Kanals, 11 Marlas but while preparing the record for the year 1950-51, his name was omitted from Khewat No,362 measuring 48 Kanals, 11 Marlas.
5. The report prepared by Abdul Rehman, Patwari Consolidation, P.W.1, is in accordance with the said record and fully supports the plaintiff's case. To similar effect is the statement of P.W.2 Ghulam Jaffar, the Circle Patwari. It is true that according to Khatuni Exh.P.7 Fraza had been given 9 Kanals, 5 Marlas of land but there is no denial on record that he was owner of other land as well and in the present suit he complained of the said shortfall because of the said error in the Revenue Record.
6. Now it is well-settled that once it is found that an entry has been unlawfully altered, it shall be deemed that the old correct entry always A continued. Reference be made to the case of Misri through Legal Heirs and others v. Muhammad Sharif and others 1997 SCM R 338.
7. So far as the said other contention of the learned counsel is concerned, the same is without any force, the reason being that there is no denial regarding the actual ownership of the plaintiff in the erstwhile Khewat and the adjustment will be made accordingly after correcting the entries as held by the learned Courts below. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed but without any orders as to costs.