' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- On 22-10-1989 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents. In the plaint it was stated that the petitioners are owners of the suit land along with their brothers as detailed in Para 4 of the plaint. Their share is 2/6. They never agreed to sell and they never sold their land to respondents Nos.2 to 7. Then there is reference to further alienation of land in favour of respondents Nos.8 to 16. According to them they never appeared before any Registrar and did not execute any sale deed. According to them the Tehsildar illegally and fraudulently attested mutation No3 on 17-11-1982 in favour of respondents Nos.2 to 7 when there had been no sale in their favour by the petitioners. A declaration was accordingly prayed for along with joint possession. The respondents in their written statement took the plea that Mian Khizar Hay at, father of the petitioners was duly certified guardian of the petitioners who had lawfully sold the land. It was also stated that'names of the petitioners were not incorporated in the sale deed and the matter was corrected by the Tehsildar while attesting the mutation. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 13-4-2004. A learned Additional District Judge dismissed the first appeal on 1-4-2005.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that it is a matter of record that the petitioners were minors at the relevant time and further that they were not at all parties to the sale deed on the basis whereof mutation No,3 was attested in favour of respondents Nos. 2 to 7 and further transferred it to the remaining respondents. According to the learned counsel the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to amend the sale deed. Learned counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, contends that no doubt the petitioners were not parties to the sale deed but at that time they were minors and their father had consented to the mutation being attested including the names of the petitioners notwithstanding the fact that they were not party thereto.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly the sale deed being relied upon by the respondents is Exh. D.8, which is dated 6-6-1982. It is further admitted that the petitioners are not at all a party to the said sale deed.
Mutation No,3 (Exh.D. 19) was entered on 14-10-1983 with reference to the said registered sale deed.
This document however, records the petitioners also as vendors along with the persons mentioned in the said sale deed. It is indeed shocking that notwithstanding the said facts apparent on the face of record both the learned Courts below have proceeded to hold that their names were left out of the registered document through some mistake and this mistake was corrected by the Tehsildar while attesting the mutation. There is no evidence whatsoever on record of a valid sale by or on behalf of the petitioners through the said sale deed Exh.D.8 of any portion of the suit land.
Needless to state that the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction whatsoever under any law to amend or rectify the registered sale deed. One of the reasons given by the learned Additional District Judge at page 13 in his judgment is that Ghulam Moeen-ud-Din petitioner was in fact major at the time of execution of sale deed. I wonder as to how the learned Additional District Judge has treated this additional ground for granting relief to the petitioners, as one, for refusing the same to them. The reference to other instance is meaningless for the simple reason that the petitioners were not at all a party to the sale deed on the basis whereof the mutation was attested and their names were included as vendors and incorporated in the revenue record. The Civil Revision is accordingly allowed. Both the impugned judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below are set aside and the suit filed by the petitioners is decreed as prayed for.