' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--Through this Civil Reviso in, petitioners have challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees i.e, dated 11-1-1995 passed by the the learned trial Court as also that of the learned appellate Court, dated 17-1-1996 vide which the suit of the respondent-plaintiff was decreed and in appeal the same was affirmed by the learned appellate Court.
2. Facts giving rise to the instant petition are that predecessor-in-interest of the respondent- plaintiff, namely, Ahmad son of Mirza filed a suit for declaration that he was owner of the land measuring 3 Kanals, 19 Marlas situated in Square No,67, Killa No,18/2 as per Revenue Record (for the years 1982-1983) situated in village Kalyanpur and that the Revenue Record be directed to be corrected accordingly, it was averred in the plaint that the grandfather of the respondent-plaintiff had got 3-1/2 Kanals situated in Khasra No,782 from predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner- defendants through Mutation No,407, dated 23-121923 the prosecution was delivered to Mahla and after his death the respondent-plaintiff remained in possession since then. However, during the consolidation proceedings for the year 1979-80, the consolidation officials, by mistake, described the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent-plaintiff to be "Tabadla Girdana" of some other land situated in Square No,78 Killa No,16/2 and he was given possession thereof. Notwithstanding the fact that this Killa number was made in place of previous Killa Nos.807 and 810 and in place of Khasra No,782 "which the predecessor-in-interest of respondent-plaintiff inherited and which is the disputed land", Killa No,18/2 Square No,67 was made and the petitioner-defendant were wrongly shown as owners. Petitioners-defendant filed a suit which was decreed against the respondent- plaintiff and the appeal was dismissed. Later on, the respondent-plaintiff came to know that the previous Khasra number of Killa No,18/2 was Khasra No,782 of which the predecessor-in-interest of respondent-plaintiff was the owner and was entitled for the declaration sought and possession as well. The suit was contested and in terms of the divergent pleas, following issues were framed:---
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit? OPD
(2) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff has been estopped to file this suit? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is barred by res judicate? OPD
(6) Whether the valuation of the suit is incorrect of the purpose of Court fee? OPD
(7) Whether the defendants are entitled to recover the special costs form the plaintiff? OPD
(8) Whether the plaintiff is owner of the property in question and the revenue record prepared by defendant No,1 is illegal against the facts, without authority, hence ineffective? OPP
(9) Relief.
3. Learned trial Court decreed the suit primarily on the basis of admission of the petitioner defendant who appeared as D.W.1 and on the statement of P.W.2 Patwari and held as under:--- ' " D.W.1 has admitted during the cross-examination that the grandfather of the plaintiff had exchanged the property with Ahmad and Yaseen sons of Muhammad and Square No,67 Killa No,18/2 was given in exchange to the predecessor-ininterest of the plaintiff. After this admission on the part of D.W.1 the controversy is settled automatically. The said D.W.1 has admitted that he has the possession over the suit property and he further admitted that he had taken the property out of Square No,78 Killa No,16/2 previously by way of possession. The defendant D.W.1 further admitted that the property in Square No,67 Killa No,18/2 had the previous Khasra number before the consolidation proceedings as 782. D.W.2 has also admitted these facts during the cross- examination.
' The afore-referred finding was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge who observed as under:--- ' "..................... It appears that after consolidation proceedings, the consolidation officials instead of showing present plaintiff Ahmad to be owner of the newly-created Killa No,18/2 showed him owner over Killa No,16/2 on the basis of exchange, sanctioned vide Mutation No,407, while present defendants were shown to be owner in possession in Killa No,18/2. As the names of predecessor-in- interest of the present defendants and the persons who had exchanged their land with grandfather of the plaintiff happens to be the same, however, their parents were different. The names of the predecessor-in-interest of the present defendants were Ahmad and Yaseen sons of Mohkam, while the persons who had exchanged their land with Mahla were Ahmaan and Yaseen sons of Muhammad. Due to this commonness in the names of the predecessor in interest of the defendants and the persons who had exchanged their land with Mahla, the consolidation officials wrongly mentioned names of the present plaintiff in Killa No,16/2 and the present defendants in Killa No,18/2. The present defendants got their land through suit filed by them, the judgment of which is on the record as Exh.P5/D1 from the plaintiff."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the concurrent judgment and decrees passed by the learned Courts below by submitting that both the Courts have misread the evidence; that they have not correctly appreciated the merit and effect of Mutation No . 407, dated 23-12-1923 (Exch.P.1); that at best the respondent-plaintiff could be owner of half of the suitland; that the impugned judgments and decrees reflect material irregularity- and are liable to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff defended the impugned judgments and decrees by submitting that these are in accord with the weight of evidence led; that the case of the respondent-plaintiff was corroborated even by the evidence led by the petitioner-defendants; that the petitioner-defendants conceded about mistake made by the revenue staff during consolidation proceedings and that the concurrent judgments and decrees reflected no illegality or irregularity which could be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone-through the evidence led.
7. Besides the documentary evidence, the respondent-plaintiff had produced primarily two witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Ahmad and P.W.2 Muhammad Akram Patwari of the revenue estate. P.W.1, stated that he was owner of the suit-land which his paternal grandfather Mahla got in exchange from Ahmad and Yaseen sons of Muhammad in 1923; .That Mutation No,407 (Exh.P.1), dated 23-12- 1923 was attested; that during consolidation proceedings Khasra numbers of the suit-land were wrongly described and he was adjusted a different land i.e, Square No,78 Killa No,16/2 although he was entitled to get Square No,67 Killa No,18/2; that the defendant got possession of the suit-land through mis-representing and at that time he was not aware of the actual position and when he came to know he filed the instant suit. Muhammad Akram Patwari appeared as P.W.2. He described in detail that the-previous Khasra- numbers of the suit-land were 781, 782 and 297; that the total area of Khasra No,782 was 3 Kanals, 10 Marlas; that during consolidation proceedings Killa No,18/2 was made in the afore-referred Khasra numbers but instead of the afore referred Khasra number, Killa No,16/2 was given to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent-plaintiff. He further stated that in terms of Mutation No,407 (Exh.P.1) Khasra No,782 was got exchanged by Mahla, the grandfather of Ahmad predecessor-in-interest of the respondent-plaintiff. He was subjected to cross-examination but he reiterated what he had stated in examination-in-chief and nothing could be brought on record to demolish his credibility. Interestingly when Jan Muhammad petitioner-defendant appeared as D.W.1 he himself conceded and corroborated the case of the respondent-plaintiff when in cross-examination he said as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' He candidly admitted about the fact that the grandfather of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent-plaintiff, namely, Mahla had exchanged the land which after consolidation was given new numbers i.e, Square No,67 Killa No,18/2. The statement of the other witness produced by the petitioner-defendant D.W.2 Muhammad Hayat is of no consequence as admittedly he was 45 years of age when his statement was recorded and he was not even born B when the mutation of exchange was affected 'as far back as in 1923. But so far as the lapses made during consolidation proceedings are concerned even he admitted in cross-examination that the land which was exchanged through mutation in question was bearing Khasra No,782 prior to consolidation proceedings. So far as the judgment, dated 10-1-1989 rendered in the previous suit is concerned (Exh.P.5 and Exh.D.1), the same is of no consequence as it is a finding with regard to the newly- created Killa No,16/2 Square No,78 which the respondent-plaintiff itself disowned that it had wrongly be given to him. The finding of the learned trial Court in the said judgment (Exh.P.5) makes it further explicit wherein it was observed as under:--- ' .The perusal of Jamabandi, mutations and pedigree-table and Khatuni Pamaish clearly proves that the plaintiffs are owners of the property in dispute and defendant has no concern/partnership with the plaintiffs with regard to Killa No,16/2 of Square No,78 measuring 3 Kanals, 11 Marlas. The defendant has admitted the factum of exchange with Ahmaan, Yasin sons of Muhammad.
8. The foregoing analysis of the evidence led by the parties would indicate that the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below do not reflect any misreading of evidence, illegality or material irregularity to warrant interference in these proceedings. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been laid in a very in structure judgment of the august Supreme Court reported in Abdul Hakeem v. Habibullah and 11 others 1997 SCM R 1139 wherein, at pages 143, it was observed as under:--- ' " The High Court while examining the legality of the judgment and decree in exercise of its power under section 115, C.P.C. Cannot upset a finding of fact, however erroneous it may be, on reappraisal of evidence and taking a different view of the evidence. Such findings of facts can only be interfered with by the High Court under section 115, Cr.P.C, if the Courts below have either misread the evidence on - record or while assessing or evaluating the evidence have omitted from consideration some important piece of evidence which has direct bearing on the issues involved in the case. The findings of facts will also be open to interfere by the High Court under section 115, C.P.C. If the approach of the Courts below to the evidence is perverse meaning thereby that no reasonable person would reach the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below on the basis of the evidence on record"
9. For what has been discussed above I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the concurrent impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below to warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The petition, having no merit, is accordingly dismissed.