' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.-This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 6-12- 1995 passed by learned Additional District Judge Bhalwal District Sargodha whereby appeal brought by respondents Nos.l and 2 against the judgment and decree dated 30-11-1991 passed by learned Civil Judge, Bhalwal was accepted and suit for declaration brought by them was 4 decreed in their favour.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that Muhammad Hassan and Qaim Din (respondents Nos.l and 2) filed suit or declaration against the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 and 4 and stated that the Mst. Salaman (petitioner) was owner of suit-land (measuring 10 Kanals and 13 Marlas bearing Khewat No.20 Khatuni No.40 situated in village Dewanpur, Tehsil Bhalwal) and she sold the same to them for a consideration of Rs. 16,000 and also delivered possession. The plaintiffs/respondents further stated that they are in possession of the suit-land through their tenant (Lai Khan son of Allah Ditta). He handed over possession to the (respondents/plaintiffs) after Rabi 1982 crop. The plaintiffs maintained that petitioner/defendant is closely related to them, therefore, at that time sale mutation was not sanctioned. On 1-4-1982 defendant No.3 (Qadir Bukhsh) attempted to get session from them and he disclosed that 'Mst. Salaman had sold suit- land to him through special attorney, Qasim Ali (defendant No.2) vide registered sale-deed 906 dated 21-12-1980. The plaintiffs asserted that sale-deed dated 21-12-1980 is illegal, based on fraud and ineffective qua their rights because they had purchased suit-land prior to 21-12-1980. Also that Mst. Salaman was not owner of suit-land hence she could not appoint defendant No.2 as special attorney. The petitioner mentioned in written statement that she had not sold suit-land to plaintiffs and she had not received sale price from them. She had not appointed defendant No.2 as special attorney. Mst, Salaman also filed suit for declaration against the respondents/ plaintiffs to the effect that she is owner of suit-land and respondents/plaintiffs have no concern with the same.
Also that special power of attorney and registered sale-deed No.906 dated 21-12-1980 executed by Qasim Ali in favour of Qadar Bukhsh. Are illegal, based on fraud and liable to be set aside. Learned trial Court consolidated the suits, recorded evidence and dismissed the suit brought by respondents Nos.l and 2 (Muhammad Hassan and Qaim Din) whereas suit brought by Mst.
Salaman (petitioner) against the respondents was decreed vide judgment dated 30-11-1991.
Muhammad Hassan and Qaim Din filed appeal thereagainst which was accepted vide judgment dated 7-12-1995 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhawal. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above the case of petitioner is that she is owner of suit-land and she had never transferred the same in favour of respondents. However, the case of Muhammad Hassan and Qaim Din (respondents Nos.l and 2) is that they had purchased the suit-land from petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 16,000 and report No.179 dated 5-1-1979 was recorded in Roznamcha Waqiati'
Patwari (daily diary register) and they are in possession of the suit-land on the basis of said sale.
The case of petitioner, is that Muhammad Hassan and Qaim Din (respondents/plaintiffs) were in possession of suit-land as her tenants. However, the case of respondents is that at the time of sale, Lai Khan (P.W.3) was in possession of suit-land as tenant and after sale petitioner directed him to pay share of produce to respondents/plaintiffs. Lai Khan appeared as P.W.3 and stated that he had been cultivating the suit-land for 8/9 years as tenant of Mst. Salaman petitioner. Later on Mst.
Salaman told him that she 'had sold suit-land to respondents hence he should pay share of produce to them (respondents). He had been paying share of produce to the plaintiffs. Thereafter he handed over the possession to respondents. So it is clear that P.W.3 has fully supported the case of respondents P.W.l, Zafar Ali stated that 9 years back, Mst. Salaman sold suit-land to plaintiffs/respondents and received sale price in his presence and that since then they are in possession of the suit-land. , P.W.2, Abdul Rasheed also made similar statement. Muhammad Mumtaz Khan 'Patwari Halqa' appeared as P.W.5 and stated that report No. 179 dated 5-1-1979 (Exh.P.5) was recorded by him. According to this report petitioner had sold suit-land to respondents. As such he has also supported the case of respondents/plaintiffs. The statements of P.Ws. Are convincing and confidence-inspiring. However Mst. Salaman has failed to . Produce any worthwhile evidence in support of her case. She while appearing as D.W.l stated that she had not transferred suit-land in favour of plaintiffs and that she had handed over the possession to plaintiffs/respondents as ' tenants. However as stated earlier Lai Khan has contradicted her statement. Even otherwise according to copy of 'Khasra gardawari' (Exh.P4) at the relevant time Lai Khan was in possession of suit-land as tenant and later on respondents occupied the same. So statement of Mst. Salaman cannot be believed. Even otherwise as mentioned earlier she has failed to produce any worthwhile evidence in support of her case So'it is clear from the material available on record that petitioner had sold suit-land to respondents. As such learned Additional District Judge has rightly accepted the appeal brought by respondents. The judgment dated 7-12-1995 shows that learned Additional District Judge has decided the appeal brought by respondents after appraisal of entire material available on record. Paras Nos.5 to 7 of the said judgment reads as under.
5. "Firstly, I would take up Issue No.l, which speaks regarding the ownership in possession of the appellants/plaintiffs. In order to prove this issue, five witnesses have been produced by the appellants, which includes the statement of Zafar Ali (P.W.l), Abdul Rashid (P.W.2) Lai Khan (P.W.3) and statement of one of the appellant namely Qaim Din as well as statement of the Patwari namely Muhammad Mumtaz who appeared in additional evidence as P.W.5. Learned trial Court has decided this issue against the appellant and it appears that the learned Judge, took into consideration, some minor discrepancies occurred in the statement of P.Ws. According to law, laid down in case Saheb Khan v. Muhammad Pannah (PLD 1994 SC 162) "plaintiffs, could not have been non-suited on minor contradictions, in the statement when such statements were recorded after lapse of some years." The learned trial Court did not give any weight to the oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced by the appellants and gave much weight to the effect that Mst.
Salaman, is a woman fold and Paradanashin lady. The document Exh.P.5, which is copy of Rapt Roznamcha, has been totally ignored, which is the most important document in this case and has been proved through the testimony of Muhammad Mumtaz Khan Patwari (P.W.5), who recorded the same and according to his statement, Rapt No. 179 dated 5-1-1979, is in his hand and its copy is Exh.P.5, as referred above. He was thoroughly cross-examined by the opponent counsel but his cross-examination made the case more strengthen then it was before the production of additional evidence. He stated that he had received the summons through the Court and in compliance thereof, he has brought the record from the Patwari Halqa because now he has been transferred from there and is posted at Bhabra, whereas, during the days of transaction, between Mst.
Salaman and the appellants, Muhammad Hassan etc., he was posted as Patwari Halqa at Beer Baran, where the entries in Roznamcha, regarding the sale of dispute, was made vide Rapt No.179, dated 5-1-1979, which is in his hand. He further deposed that Mst. Salaman, was not presently known to him, however, her husband Jahangir, was known to him who had accompanied her along with Muhammad Hussain Lambardar. He further deposed that he had obtained the signature, of the witnesses on Roznamcha and entry of mutation was not made due to restriction in those days.
In this context, case Haji Elahi Bukhsh v. No or Muhammad and others (PLD 1985 SC 41), may be referred wherein it has been held that statement of Patwari, who recorded the reports and proved admissions of vendor and vendee should be given weight regarding the transaction. It is further held that presumption of correctness is attached to the entries in "Roznamcha Waqiati" the Courts should believe it because document is prepared in discharge of his officials duties at the time when no dispute over the property had arisen.
6. The remaining evidence produced by the appellants would also show that each of the witnesses on their behalf deposed in accordance with the pleadings and proved the fact that Rs. 16,000 were given by the appellants to Mst. Salaman and the possession of the land was delivered by her. The testimony of Zafar Ali, and Abdul Rashid, P.W.l and P.W;2, respectively, inspire confidence and despite thorough cross-examination regarding the material facts, no material contradiction has come on record in order to disbelieve the facts that the transaction has not been effected between the parties.
7 It is The other important witness in this case is Lai Khan, who appeared in witness-box as P.W.3. He is the tenant of the land since long and remained under the tenancy of Mst. Salaman as well. He deposed that she herself had come to her after sale of the land and asked him that in the future, he should give the share to the appellants, because the land in question had already been sold out to them. He further deposed that since four years, he had been paying the share to the appellants as he was instructed for the same, Qaeem Din, appellant No.2, fully supported his case by deposing that about nine years before (his statement was recorded on 12-11-1987), Mst. Salaman, had alienated the land in question through oral sale while receiving the amount of Rs. 16,000 and had informed the tenant regarding the said facts and thereafter, she never received the share out of the land. This fact has been admitted by Mst. Salaman respondent herself . During her statement made before the Court as D.W.l by saying that she gave the land to the appellants being tenants. In my opinion, the findings of learned trial Court, are not in accordance with law and facts, of the case and Issue No.l, has been wrongly decided against the appellants. In view of my above discussion, I hold that the appellants are real owners in possession of the land and decided Issue No.l, in their favour while reversing the findings of learned trial Court".
It well-reasoned judgment. There is nob illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Likewise there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence, therefore, there is no justification to set aside impugned judgment.
' The upshot of the above discussion is that this revision petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.