' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 21-11-1990 the respondent No,8 (Sultan Mubaraz) filed a suit against the remaining respondents and the petitioners. Later petitioner No,1 and respondents Nos.4 to 7 were also transposed as plaintiffs and an amended plaint was filed. According to the contents of the plaint, the suit-land measuring 26 Kanals, 4 Marlas was owned by the petitioner No,2. He sold it to Allah Ditta respondent No,9. Major Muhammad Khan, the father of the petitioners as well as respondents Nos.4 to 6, filed a suit for pre-emption which was decreed on 8-3-1983. The pre- emption money was deposited within the stipulated time and the respondent No,9 withdrew the same. However, it turned out that neither the sale by petitioner No,2 in favour of respondent No,9 nor the said decree were incorporated in the Revenue Records. The result was that the petitioner No,2 remained recorded as an owner. Taking advantage of the said illegal entries, he proceeded to sell the land measuring 19 Kanals, 12 Marlas vide Mutations Nos.420 and 421 attested on 24-3-1990 in favour of respondent No,1 on the one hand and respondents Nos.2 and 3 on the other respectively. These alienations were stated to be illegal and void. A declaration was sought accordingly. The suit was contested only by the respondents Nos.1 to 3 i,e, the vendees. They stated that they were not aware of the said sale at the time of the said mutations. The factum of pre- emption decree was not denied rather it was pleaded that it was a collusive suit. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 19-10- 1995 in its entirety and the vendees were found entitled to the refund of consideration from the petitioner No,2. The respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed a first appeal which has been partly allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Attock, inasmuch as he held the said sales invalid to the extent of 52/80 share of the respondents Nos.1 to 7 but he has held the sale to be valid to the extent of shares of petitioners Nos.1 and 2 i,e, 28/80 (calculated with reference to the share in the estate of their father Major Muhammad Khan (the successful pre-emptor). This was done vide judgment and decree dated 10-4-2000.
2. Malik Shahzad Ahmad, Advocate/learned counsel for the petitioners contends with reference to the case of Nazar Hussain Shah and 2 others v. Mst. Khurshid Bibi and others 2002 SCM R 49 that so far as Shahbaz Khan petitioner No,1 is concerned, the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the mere fact that he attested the mutations would not constitute an estoppel to deprive him of his lawful rights in the suit-land. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner No,1 was fully aware as to what was happening when the mutations were attested by him and he cannot now turn around and claim ignorance.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. It stands proved that the land was sold by the petitioner No,2 to Allah Ditta respondent No,9 vide registered sale-deed dated 12-8-1981 (Exh.D.12).
The suit filed by. Major Muhammad Khan was, decreed on 8-3-1983 (Exh.P.10). The pre-emption money was deposited and withdrawn by the said vendee vide Exhs.P.6 and P.7. In terms of Order XX, rule 14(1)(b), C.P.C. The land, therefore, vested in Muhammad Khan. This being so, the petitioner No,2 had no lawful authority to transfer the entire suit-land in favour of the contesting respondents.
4. So far as the petitioner No,1 is concerned, admittedly, he attested the mutations Exhs.D.13 and D.14 as a Pattidar and signed the said mutations on 24-3-1990 when the Tehsildar recorded his orders attesting the said mutations. The said judgment in the case of Nazar Hussain Shah and 2 others being relied upon by the learned counsel was delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a pre-emption suit. It was held that the pre-emptor was a Lambardar and was duty bound to identify the vendor at the time of mutation and as such was not estopped.
5. I may further note here that there is no concept of an estoppel by attestation. Reference be made to the case of Ashiq Hussain and others v. Nisar Ali and others 1969 SCM R 341. The mere fact that petitioner No,1 had attested the mutations would not have constituted an estoppel. However, in this civil revision being dealt with by me both the brothers i,e, Hamid Nawaz petitioner No,2 who had sold the land to respondents Nos.1 to 3 and Shahbaz Khan petitioner No,1 are standing hand in hand. This civil revision has been filed jointly by both of them. Since the petitioner No,1 later joined array of plaintiffs while petitioner No,2 remained as defendant whose act of selling the land of the plaintiffs was challenged, I called upon the learned counsel for the petitioners to render an explanation as to how they have joined in this venture. He has nothing to say except that since the petitioner No,1 could not afford to pay the expenses, he has joined petitioner No,2 who has paid the expenses for this civil revision. To my mind, this fact by itself is sufficient to raise an inference that both the brothers have been colluding with each other and further that petitioner No,1 was fully aware of the mis-deeds of the petitioner No,2 and opted to look the other way. I am not,therefore, inclined to exercise revisional jurisdiction. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed with costs throughout.