' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 25-7-1987 the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents. It was stated in the plaint that 1/2 share in the land, described in para-1 of the plaint (with reference to its Khasra numbers per Registers Haqdaran Zamin for the year, 1899-1900 as also 1981-82) was purchased by Siraj Din son of Amir Bakhsh, the grandfather of the petitioner, along with one Faqirullah vide registered sale-deed, dated 16-8-1906 while the remaining suit-land was purchased by the said persons vide registered sale-deed, dated 16-3-1901. It was further stated that ever-since his grandfather, then his father and then the petitioner had been continuing in possession as owners and the respondents have been acknowledging the said ownership. It was then abruptly stated that because of wrong entries in the Revenue Records, the respondents are denying the title of the petitioner and are about to alienate the suit-land. A declaration and permanent injunction was accordingly sought. According to the available record, appended with this civil revision, two sets of defendants i,e, respondents Nos.1, 3, 5 to 7 and respondents Nos.38 to 46 filed written statements. A common plea taken was that the petitioner himself as well as his predecessors had been selling away the land and the vendees have not been impleaded. The respondents Nos.38 to 46 took the plea that they had purchased the land from the uncle of the petitioner, namely, Malik Zafarullah vide registered sale-deed, dated 1-6-1964. Issues were framed.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 15-12-1991. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned ADJ, Sialkot, on 19-12-1995.
2. Mr. Ahmad Waheed Khan, Advocate/learned counsel for thepetitioner contends that evidence on record has been misread. According to him, regarding the pre-emption decree relied upon by the learned ADJ, there is no evidence as to whether the successful pre-emptors paid the pre-emption money and became owners of the land decreed in their favor. This contention pertains to the sale- deed, dated 16-3-1901. Regarding the other sale-deed, dated 16-8-1906, the learned counsel states that the land has not been traced properly. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, with reference to the documentary evidence available on record supports the impugned judgments and decrees.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned, counsel for the parties. I have already reproduced above the material contents of the plaint and the written statements on record. The case of the plaintiffs rests upon the sale-deeds which are Exhs.P.1 and P.2 on record. It may be noted here that the land was described in the plaint with reference to the Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1899-1900 as also for 1981-82. The former document has not been produced by the petitioner whereas the extracts from the latter documents have been produced as Exh.P.3 to Exh.P.13. In Exh.P.8 the name of Nasrullah son of Siraj Din who is stated to be the father of the petitioner does appear in the column of ownership along with several other persons. However, he had made sales in column of possession which are duly recorded in the said document. Now the plaint is absolutely silent regarding the said entries in the column of possession. The petitioner himself appeared as his only witness as P.W.1 and did not offer any explanation for the said entries.
4. On the other hand, the respondents have produced the Revenue Records starting from 1890-93 and all other relevant documents. Exh.D.39 is a plaint in a suit filed by Muhammad Ali and others against Siraj Din, Faqir Muhammad vendees as well as their vendors qua the registered sale-deed, dated 16-3-1901 (Exh.P.1). Exh.D.40 is the copy of the decree passed in the said suit, whereby it was decreed. This decree stands incorporated in the Revenue Records and it is to be assumed that the decree had been executed after payment of the preemption amount. Otherwise the said Siraj Din or Faqirullah must have raised objection. So far as the sale-deed, dated 16-8-1906 (Exh.P.2) is concerned, it was, admittedly, set aside to the extent of 1/5 of the suit filed by one of the vendors who claimed that he was a minor, vide decree, Exhs. D.37 and D.38.
5. Exh.D.24 is a registered document of partition, dated 20-12-1944 to which Malik Muhammad Zafar and Malik Muhammad Nasrullah sons of Siraj Din are a party, whereby they affected partition of whatever land devolved upon them from their father Siraj Din. Thealienations made by the said sons of Siraj Din were effected mostly by registered documents, copies whereof have been produced by the respondents. Exh.D.5 is Mutation No,115 attested in the year, 1978 to correct the records with reference to an order passed by a Settlement Officer whereby the name of Nasrullah son of Siraj Din was removed from the column of ownership. I have already referred to above that the said Nasrullah had been making alienations from the column of possession which are recorded in the documents relied upon by the petitioner himself and the said correction ordered by the S.O.
Is, thus, understandable.
6. The petitioner in the witness box was confronted with all the said evidence i,e, factum of pre- emption decree, the partial setting aside of the other sales, the partition and the alienations as also the said correction mutation. There is no denial available on record. He has simply expressed ignorance in response to each and every confrontation.
7. Having, thus, gone through the records, I do not find any grounds being made out for interference with the impugned judgments and decrees within the meaning of section 115, C.P.C. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed. However, no orders as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.