' MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.---The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit on 5-12-1991 before the Civil Judge, Chiniot for declaration to the effect that sale Mutation No, 420 attested on 15-10-1991 in favour of defendant/ petitioner for the sale of land measuring 145 Kanals 11 Marlas situate in Mauza Mehta, Tehsil Chiniot for a consideration of Rs,50,000 was based upon fraud misrepresentation, void, against the facts and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs/ respondents. It was averred that the suit-land was owned by Baqar Hussain the brother of plaintiffs, and real uncle of defendant/petitioner. Baqar Hussain died on 24-11-1991. Petitioner/ defendant in collusion with the revenue officials got mutation No,420 attested in her favour on 15-1-1991.Deceased, Baqar Hussain did not sell the suit-land nor received any consideration nor appeared before the revenue officer nor put his thumb impression on the mutation. The suit was resisted denying all the allegations. It was stated that the mutation of sale No,420 was rightly sanctioned on 15-10-1991 after payment of Rs,50,000 and,the possession of the land was handed over to the defendant/petitioner on the same day. Out of the pleading of the parties following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to bring this suit? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their words and conduct to file this suit? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(4) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is mala fide? OPD
(5) Whether the mutation No,420 dated 15-10-1991 is illegal, void, based on fraud and liable to be set aside? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are legal heirs of deceased Baqir Hussain and entitled to decree for declaration as claimed in the plaint? OPP'
7. Relief.
' The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/ respondents on 14-12-1993. An appeal was preferred before the Additional District Judge, Chiniot who accepted the same set aside the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/ respondents vide his judgment dated 20-2-1995.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Additional District Judge set aside the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that the mutation No,420 was not attested in accordance with the provisions of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. He further submitted that the payment of the sale consideration stands proved on the record. He referred to the testimonies of D.W.1 and D.W.3. He further contended that the attestation of the mutation at Tehsil office does not vitiate the sale mutation. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Ishaq and 2 others v.
Ghafoor Khan and another (2000 SCM R 519), Manzoor Hussain and 3 others v. Muhammad Siddique (2000 CLC 623) and Muhammad Ishaq and others v. Ghafoor Khan and others (1999 YLR 1956). Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned judgment.
3. I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below and perused the record. The petitioner is the real niece of the defendants as well as that of Baler Hussain,(deceased) vendor. The sale transaction is proved by Khurshid Afaq Mehdi, D.W.3.He categorically stated in the cross- examination that the sale consideration was paid in his presence and before Tehsildar. It is admitted by Parwarash Ali, one of the plaintiffs who appeared as P.W.I that Khurshid Afaq Mehdi knows him (witness) and Baqer Hussain, deceased. He was Lumberdar though of a different village but he acntified the vendor, Baqer Hussain, deceased. There is no reason to disbelieve him.
Parwarash Ali, plaintiff also stated that the mutation did not bear the thumb impression of Bager Hussain whereas the mutation Ext.P.1 shows the signatures of Baqer Hussain on the same. The identity card number of Bager Hussain is also given on the impugned mutation. Qasam Abbas, D.W.1 the attorney of petitioner stated that Rs,50,000 were paid to Baqer Hussain for the purchase of suit-land. Earlier Baqer Hussain had sold the house to the petitioner for Rs 50,000 and the same was never challenged. All the D.Ws. Stated that Parwarash Ali, plaintiff joined only the "Jinaza" prayers and did not attend the other funeral ceremonies of his deceased brother Baqer Hussain.
This fact is admitted by Parwarash Ali P. W.1 stating that he did 'not join the other funeral ceremonies because the cases were pending in the Courts against each other. It is clear from the evidence of the P.W.1 and D.Ws, that the brothers were locked in litigation-and were not on speaking terms. In the circumstances the sale of suit-land in favour of petitioner was quite natural and in my view stands proved by D.W.1 and D.W.3. A minor discrepancy about the place of payment of sale consideration does not invalidate the sale transaction. The respondents have not been able to impeach the veracity of the two witnesses. The finding of the learned Additional District Judge that a mutation of sale is to be attested in the common assembly in the estate in which the land is situate and mutation attested at Tehsil office is void, is not sustainable in law. In the case of Muhammad Ishaq and 2 others v. Ghafoor Khan and another (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-- ' "Therefore, the technical objection of non-compliance of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act,1967 would not advance his case. Once the authenticity and genuiness of the sale transaction is established then mere irregularity in the procedure regarding attestation of mutation would not affect the binding effect of the mutation as no provision in the 'Land Revenue Act would be referred to which invalidate such transaction."
' The learned Additional District Judge completely misdirected himself as to the application of the law.
4. For what has been stated above this revision petition is allowed, the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Chiniot dated 20-2-1995 is set aside and that of the trial Court dated 14-