' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.---The respondent Muhammad Khan and others filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class Bhalwal, where ten issues were framed out of pleadings of the parties and the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit on the strength of his findings upon all the issues vide judgment and decree, dated 7-5-1995.
2. This was assailed in Appeal No.217 of 1996 before the learned Additional District Judge, Bhalwal District Sargodha, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the learned Civil Judge through judgment, dated 11-3-2000.
3. As the facts of the case are undisputed, there is no need to repeat the same because being available in the file. However, the impugned judgment, dated 11-3-2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhalwal is important to be noted for the disposal of this civil revision and the relevant paras are paras 9 and 10.
"As far as the arguments of the defence are concerned, Mst. Robina Bibi was not having her figure in the Khewit No.77 at the time the transaction took place. The arguments have no force for the simple reason that Mutation No.4331 was implemented before the attestation of Mutation No.4332 and till the attestation of Mutation No.4332 Mst. Robina was holding the field out of Khewit No.77.
The said arguments itself goes against the defendants that Mutation No,4332 was got sanctioned but not with bona fide.
' There is no evidence on file that Muhammad Khan the plaintiff was governing his possession over the suit property as a tenant. Although Khasra Girdawary mentions the plaintiff as tenant qua the suit property. This figure is not exclusive proof that the plaintiff had no title qua the suit property for the simple reason that Khasra Girdawary deals with the possession of the property and not with the title. Secondly, the entries of Khasra Girdawary does not attach the presumption of truth with it.
The defendant had to prove that the possession of the plaintiff qua the suit property was as a tenant and not as co-sharer. The evidence of the defendant is not confidence-inspiring as far as the said count is concerned. D. W.1 recorded during the cross-examination that the plaintiff used to pay the share produce to the defendant No.
1. Defendant No.1 could be the best primary evidence in favour of the defendant but he had not been recorded in the Court as a witness. It is admitted fact that when the exchange of a property in question was mutated the defendant No.8 did not inquire about from the plaintiff the capacity in which he was having in possession over the suit property. It is admitted fact that two persons namely Muhammad Khan Maken and other Muhammad Khan were present when Mutation No.4331 was executed. The defendant No.8 recorded as D.W.1 during the cross-examination that when the original mutation in favour of the plaintiff was executed he was not present but the persons namely Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Khan Maken who was present at the time of attestation of mutation informed him of the fact. It becomes proved that both Muhammad Khan's, referred above, were the eye-witnesses of the transaction and both have supported the version of the plaintiff appear as P.W.2 and P.W.3. The evidence of the plaintiff becomes binding, corroborative, cogent and confidence inspiring. As far as D.W.2 is concerned, he has clearly admitted that he was not a witness to the mutation or he was present when the transaction was entered into between the plaintiff and the vendor. The evidence had proved that Mst. Robin Bibi had alienated the property in favour of the plaintiff which is questioned one in the instant suit and bearing Square No.170 Killa No.7 and Killa No.8 with the area of 12-1/4 Kanals and Mutation No.4331 was incorporated but with wrong description of the property and the same be rectified. To sum up the appellants failed to prove any infirmity or illegality in the judgment under appeal. The findings of the trial Court are upheld. The appeals are devoid of any force hence are dismissed."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he admits each and every point of the respondents but disputes that in the mutation which is available at page 38 of the file the present respondents do not figure and since respondent No.1 is not having title in the land in dispute, therefore, it appears very strange rather illegal to claim that respondent No.1 is the owner of the property contained in Khewat No.77.
5. The learned counsel submits that respondent No.1 had purchased land from a joint Khata, which was yet to be partitioned, and no specific numbers of the land can be delivered through mutation or registration to anybody. The Khata if it is joint, it has to be partitioned among its owners if any one of the joint Khata members makes an application to the Revenue Officer but while decreeing the respondents' suit and dismissing the petitioners' appeal by the learned Additional District Judge those important aspects were altogether ignored. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents supports both the judgments impugned and submits that the disputed property was purchased by the present respondents in the year, 1988-89 when the petitioners were not even in existence anywhere. Even the possession of the said land is still with the present respondents right from 1988 without any disturbance whatsoever which is also not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record I am of the view that the concurrent findings recorded by the both the Courts below are unexceptionable, particularly keeping in view the opeiative part of the judgment of learned Additional District Judge which is reproduced in the above paras. Accordingly the civil revision is dismissed with no order as to costs.