' MUHAMMAD MU ZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Instant civil revision assailed judgments/decrees dated 3-1- 2000 and 10-2-2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Samundri, District Faisalabad, whereby petitioners' suit and appeal were dismissed, respectively.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of suit-land to the extent of 1/2 share on the basis of an agreement of exchange dated 13-10-1977, executed by deceased Abdul Karim predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, in favour of his brother Allah Bakhsh to whom they succeeded as heirs/legal representatives. Petitions also challenged sanctioning of inheritance Mutation No.260 dated 23-5- 1983 of Abdul Karim deceased, being opposed to the exchange reflected in the agreement relied by them. They further asserted in the plaint that since Abdul Karim deceased was not owner of the land exchanged, at the time of his death, mutation under attack was result of fraud/misrepresentation and being contrary to the facts, is liable to be declared as prayed.
3. Respondents being defendants in the suit, opposed the same by filing their written statement, wherein they denied the transaction of xchange; execution of the agreement dated 13-10-1977 and pleaded that petitioners had no cause of action/locus standi to file the suit which was not maintainable in its present form. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. Learned Civil Judge seized of the matter, after doing the needful, dismissed the suit of the 'petitioners vide his judgment/decree dated 3-1-2000.
4. Petitioners aggrieved of dismissal of their suit by the trial Court, filed and appeal before the learned Additional District Judge but remained unsuccessful as the same was also dismissed on 10-2-2006. They thereafter filed instant revision petition for adjudgment of concurrent judgments/decrees passed by the two Courts below. Respondents in response to notice by this Court have appeared and were represented through their counsel.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undisputedly, agreement of exchange dated 13-10-1977 (Exh.P.1) on the basis of which petitioners filed their suit,' was not registered under the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and narrations therein depict that parties thereto only agreed to exchange their respective share of land situated at Samundri and Shakargarh District Narowal. Under law, a mere agreement to exchange does not create any title, right or interest in the property agreed to be exchanged, especially when this document was not reported to the revenue officials, including any of the Patwaris of the concerned villages/revenue estates. On the basis of this agreement neither any Rapat in daily Roznamcha of revenue Patwari of the Circle was incorporated nor any mutation of exchange was entered at any of the two places. Parties to this agreement were real brothers and agreement relied by the petitioners was never sought to be implemented in spite of the fact that deceased Abdul Karim lived for a period of five years after its alleged execution. Petitioners did not produce any evidence showing their exclusive' possession over the land coming to their share under this agreement, as they are recorded in the Revenue Record, as co-sharers in possession.
6. Respondents have specifically denied execution of Exh.P. I and the petitioners being plaintiffs were obliged to prove not only the negotiations of exchange inter parties but also the transaction and the due execution of agreement. They in order to discharge this onus, examined Khushi Muhammad P.W.1 and Ghulam Ghaus P.W.2, the marginal witnesses of the agreement. They admitted that they were not present at the time of negotiations or execution of the agreement of exchange. In presence of such evidence on behalf of the petitioners, there was hardly any room to hold that the agreement relied by them was duly executed and really came into being. It goes without saying that petitioners never opted to have thumb-impressions of deceased Abdul Karim compared with his admitted thumb-impressions but this Court has examined thumb-impression of B Abdul Karim over Exh.P.1 which appears to have been marked twice in order to lose its identific ation/c omp aris on, negatively reflecting on their stance.
7. Suit for declaration on the basis of an agreement of exchange was not maintainable in view of bar contained in c section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, as petitioners were in a position to seek further relief of specific performance. Petitioners never opted to sue for specific performance of the agreement and at the c same time, they never bothered to convert their suit from, declaration to the one maintainable at law. The asserted agreement was statedly prepared on 13-10-1977 and came to the light only when the suit in hand was filed on 15-1-1984, after lapse of six years. Suit for declaration under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 could be filed within a period of six years, whereas one for specific performance could be filed within a period of three years from the date of denial of performance of contract by the defaulting party as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908. In the given circumstances of this case, either of the two cases, suit was beyond period of limitation and interference was correctly declined by the two Courts below. As regards sanctioning of Mutation No.260 dated 25-5-1983 on death of Abdul Karim in favour of his heirs, since transaction of exchange/agreement (Exh.P.1) was neither proved nor was implemented, the same was correctly attested by the revenue authorities and the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the same. Scan of record and the impugned judgment revealed that controversy was correctly put to rest without committing any error of law/facts or any illegality/ irregularity in.Ternis of section 115, C.P.C.
8. For the reasons noted above, no case for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court could be made out and consequently, instant petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.