' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J. The petitioner is the sister of the respondent. On 1:6-1-1995 she filed a suit against him. In the plaint, it was stated that the suit-land was owned by Abdul Razzaq, the father of the parties, who died on 3-2-1980. Vide mutation of inheritance No.873 attested on 25-7-1980 the land was mutated in favour of all the heirs including the parties. The - respondent illegally .Got Mutation No.878 attested on 25-8-1980 wherein she was purported to have sold her land to her brother along with her mother and sister. According to her, she never sold her land to the respondent and it was her plea that she was a minor at the relevant time. The respondent in his written statement claimed a valid sale by the petitioner in his favour for consideration. Following issues were framed by the learned trial Court.
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPP
(2) Whether the suit is liable to dismissal in view of preliminary objection No . 2? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by
(5) Whether the suit is defective in view of preliminary objection No.6? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit? OPD
(7) Whether defendant has got transferred the suit-land in his name during minority of plaintiff, through fraud, misrepresentation and in collusion with the revenue staff vide Mutation No.878 dated 25-8-1980? OPP (8)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for? OPP
(9) Relief.
' I am noting the Issue No.7 as it was re-framed later. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 12-2-2002. A learned ADJ, M.B. Din, dismissed the first appeal on 7-5-2003.
2. Sh. Naveed Shaharyar, Advocate/ learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is a case of deliberate misreading of evidence by the learned Courts below, 'According to him, upon a plain reading of evidence, the petitioner was a minor at the time of alleged sale or mutation and the transaction was void as against her. Further argues that even otherwise no evidence of a valid sale and a mutation is .Present on record. This case was heard on 3-7-2003 and a notice was issued to the respondent after noting the contention of the learned counsel and the several judgments noted in the said order. He was served and Mr. Aslam Zahid, Advocate, filed his power of attorney and put in appearance. His name along with the name of his colleague, Mr. Qamar Hashmat, Advocate, who is also a counsel in this case for the respondent, is duly printed in the cause list for today. The case has been repeatedly called. No one has turned up. The respondent accordingly is proceeded against ex parte.
3. I have gone through the copies of the record. I have already noted above the contents of the respective pleadings of the parties. The precise contention of the petitioner in her plaint was that she was about 12 years of age when she was stated to have sold her land to her brother i.e. 25-8- 1980 when Mutation No.878 (Exh.P.6) was attested. All the D. Ws. Including Haq Nawaz respondent have admitted that Zarina petitioner had studied A in School up to 5th Class. Exh.P.1 is the copy of the School Leaving Certificate produced by P.W.1 according which her date of birth is 12-1-1968. This document has been discarded by the learned Courts below as according to them Mushtaq Ahmad P.W.1 had not made the said entry.
4. Exh.P.3 is the copy of the: Nikahnama of the petitioner. According to this document, her Nikah was performed with Irfan Khan on 28-7-1989. Her age is recorded as 18 years. Muhammad Mubeen son of Mubarak Ali D.W.2 is a witness of the appointment of the Wakeel of the bride. He has stated that Zarina was married 7/8 years after the death of her father (i.e. 3-2-1980). He was present in the Nikah. He did not remember as to whether he was a witness. However, he stated that the entries in the Nikahnama were made under his instructions. Haq Nawaz respondent appeared as D.W.4 and stated that Zarina was married about 7 years after the death of his father. Thereafter, he stated as.
Follows:-- {{URDU TEXT}}
5. It will, thus, be seen that the lady was 18 years of age on 28-7-1989 when Nikahnama Exh.P.3 was filled in and the Nikah was performed. The respondent himself has stated that the entries were made after consulting him. This evidence C fully corroborates the School Leaving Certificate Exh.P.1 showing the date of birth of the petitioner as 12-1-1968. This being so, she was a minor when the said mutation was entered and attested on 25-8-1980.
6. The impugned judgments do not at all refer to the said evidence present on record. To my mind, this is a case of deliberate non-reading of evidence on record. The learned ADJ has reasoned that since she admitted that her mother and her sister sold their land she has admitted 2/3rd of the mutation and the remaining 1/3rd also stands proved.
7. So far as the factum of sale itself is concerned, it was sought to be proved by producing Sher Muhammad D.W.1. He stated without any demur that neither he was present at the time of the alleged negotiations nor at the time of mutation and, that he had heard that the land was sold by D the petitioner. Muharmnad ,Mubeen D.W.2 is the maternal uncle of the parties. He has told a white lie. According to him, Sher Muhammad D.W.1 was present when negotiations took place. D.W.,3 is Jameela Begum the sister who admitted having sold her land to the respondent. Statement of Haq Nawaz respondent D.W.4 has already been referred to by me above. According to him, only D.W.2 was present when negotiations took place.
8. I, therefore, find that the learned Courts below particularly the learned ADJ has stretched the conjectures to the breaking point by holding that the petitioner was a major and that she had validly sold her land to her brother. There is overwhelming evidence present on the record that the petitioner was minor at the time of mutation dated 25-8-1980 while there is no evidence of a valid sale for consideration or attestation of a valid mutation on record. The 'civil revision accordingly is allowed. Both the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and the suit filed by the petitioner is decreed. Since the respondent has opted not to put in appearance, the parties are left to bear their own costs.