' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioners-defendants impugn the decree Of the learned trial Court, dated 9-2-1993 and of the learned appellate Court, dated 11-11-2000, whereby a declaratory suit filed by Haji Gul Khan respondent-plaintiff, has been concurrently decreed.
2. The facts of the case are straightforward. The petitioners are the legal heirs of Shahbaz Khan. The said Shahbaz Khan gifted land measuring 339 kanal, 19 marlas to the petitioners through gift Mutation No,441 (Exh.D-6) sanctioned on 27-6-1988. The case of the respondent-plaintiff is that he is owner of 6 kanals and 10 marlas out of the aforesaid land and to this extent the gift mutation was invalid. The claim of the respondent is founded on the Revenue Record. In the jamabandi for the year, 1927-28, Abbas Khan, father of the respondent-plaintiff, was shown as 1/12th owner in Khata No,69. The said khata had a total area of 34 kanals, 16 marlas out of which the share of the respondent's father was equivalent to 2 kanals, 18 marlas. In the following jamabandi for the year 1933-34, the name of Abbas Khan was omitted from the Revenue record. This position remained in effect until the consolidation proceedings which were undertaken in the village in 1985-86. In addition, the respondent-plaintiff claimed that in the jamabandi for the year, 1959-60 in respect of Khata No,79, the respondent-plaintiff was shown as owner of a share equal to 3 kanals, 12 marlas in the said khata which had a total area of 300 kanals, 11 marlas. In the subsequent jamabandi for the year 1963-64, the name of the respondent-plaintiff was omitted from the Revenue Record, which situation continued in all subsequent jamabandis until the consolidation proceedings of 1985-86.
According to the respondent-plaintiff, the aforesaid omission of the name of his father from, Khata No,69 and the omission of his name from Khata No,79 required to be rectified.
3. At this juncture, it is important to note that after the consolidation proceedings, the khata of the petitioners was separated and the vandas relating to the relevant land were also separated. The father of the petitioners was given 339 kanals, 19 marlas in one khata which he gifted vide mutation (Exh. D-6). The above facts have not been controverted on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. In these circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the respondent has no claim in respect of the land which was comprised in the vanda of Shahbaz Khan, father of the petitioners. It is also relevant that the consolidation proceedings, which were finalized in 1986, were never challenged by the respondent-plaintiff and have attained finality.
4. In the foregoing circumstances, I find that the respondent-plaintiff failed to establish his claim to any portion of the gifted land and was, therefore, not entitled to the declaration and other relief sought by him. Unfortunately, the learned Courts below have failed to consider the above circumstances while decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff. The impugned decrees, as such, are not sustainable and are, therefore, set aside, with the result that the suit of the respondent-plaintiff is dismissed.