' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 11-12-1995 the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents. In the plaint, it was stated that the suit land mentioned therein was owned by the petitioner and his late brother Sher Zaman who was murdered in the year 1964 and he is the only heir. The father of the respondents Nos.1 to 3 namely, Noor Ahmad was a very clever person and he got an order from the Collector on 15-9-1970 whereby mutation No,2734 attested on 21-7-1962 was got incorporated in the revenue records. Later on they transferred the land to the respondent No,4 vide mutation No,1635 attested on 29-11-1987. According to the petitioner, he and his brother never sold their land to the said respondents. A declaration was sought accordingly. The respondents in their written statement took the plea that the father of respondents Nos.1 to 3 had purchased the land from the petitioner and his brother vide mutation No, 3623 attested on 8-1-1971 under orders of the Collector dated 15-9-1970. Following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:--
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land and mutation No,3623 dated 18- 1-71 is illegal, without notice and liable to be set aside and order of Collector, dated 15-9-1970 and mutation No, 1635 dated 29-11-87 on behalf of the defendants Nos.1 to 3 in favour of the defendant No,4 are also illegal, against the facts and law based on fraud and liable to be cancelled? OPP.
(1A) Whether the mutation No, 2734 is illegal and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP.
(2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.
(3) Whether the present suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
(4) Whether the present suit has been wrongly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction?
OPD.
(5) Whether the present suit is time barred? OPD.
(6) Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs u/s 35-A CPC? OPD.
(7) Relief.
' Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 20-6-2001.
However, the learned appellate Court remanded the case for fresh decision. Some more evidence was recorded and then the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 17-6-2006. A learned ADJ, Mianwali, dismissed the first appeal on 15-11-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is not an iota of evidence on record of a valid sale by the petitioner and his late brother in favour of the father of the respondents Nos.1 to 3 and as such the learned courts below have committed material irregularity in the exercise of their respective jurisdiction while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the mutation having been incorporated in the revenue records and there being a long silence on the part of the petitioner, the learned courts below have correctly held that the land was sold by the petitioner and his brother.
3. I have examined the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Ex.D.7 is copy of mutation No,2734 purporting to be a sale by the petitioner and his brother Sher Zaman of 1/4th share in land measuring 128 Kanals 7 Marlas (in the column of ownership in favour of Noor Ahmad the father of the respondents Nos.1 to 3). The remarks column narrates that the mutation has been entered pursuant to receipt of an application from the office of Consolidation Officer, Jauharabad. No particulars including the date of said application or order of the said Consolidation Officer has been stated.
' It was so entered on 9-9-1960. There is a note dated 15-8-1961 that parties are absent. Thereafter, it was taken up on 21-7-1962 and the order narrates that Gama a special attorney of the vendors is present and admits the sale and receipt of the consideration amount of Rs,2,000. The mutation was attested.
4. It will be seen that the petitioner or his brother does not figure anywhere either in the matter of entry or the attestation of the mutation. This mutation never saw the light of the day till 15-9-1970 when Collector, Mianwali, vide order Exh.D.9 proceeded to direct the Revenue Officer to again attest the mutation. This order itself speaks that although Afzal petitioner was named as a respondent, the Collector deemed it fit to pass the order only after hearing the said Noor Ahmad and discussing the case with ADC(G), Mianwali. There is nothing in the order and not even an allegation that Afzal was present or was even issued a notice before passing the said order. After this order, mutation No,3632 (Exh.D.5) was entered on 4,8-12-1970 and attested on 8-2-1971, of course, in the absence of Afzal (Sher Zaman had admittedly been murdered by the respondents in 1964). This mutation shows sale of 322/2567 share in the ownership column by petitioner and his late brother in favour of the said Noor Ahmad. Ex.D.6 is mutation No,1635 attested on 29-11-1987 regarding the sale of land by the respondents i,e, LRs of Noor Ahmad in favour of respondent No,4 to the extent of 644/2567 share.
5. What to speak of there being an iota of evidence on record regarding the said original sale recorded in mutation Exh.D.7, the very plea of the respondents was that they had purchased the land vide the latter mutation i,e, Exh.D.5 entered on the basis of the said order of the Collector Exh.D.9. Needless to state that it is nobody's case that Gama sold the land and that he was authorized to do so by the petitioner or his brother.
6. So far as the said contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, mere incorporation of the said mutation in the revenue records and that too in the manner noted above, would not at all derogate from the title or interest of the petitioner in the suit land and to exempt the respondents from proving the sale as a fact. Reference be made to the case of Abdul Majeed and 6 others v. Muhammad Subhan and 2 others 1999 SCM R 1245. So far as reference to long silence is concerned, nothing turns on the same. The parties are, admittedly, co-sharers and the illegal change in the revenue records would not make the period of limitation running against the petitioner. Besides, it has been proved on record that after the murder of his brother in the year 1964, the petitioner gave up his residence in the revenue estate in question and returned only in the year 1994. I may further note here that issue No,5 pertaining to the limitation was not pressed by the respondents in the trial Court. While affirming the finding of the learned courts below on issues Nos.2 to 6, I reverse the findings on issues Nos.1 and 1-A and answer the same in favour of the petitioner. The civil revision is allowed. Both the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and the suit filed by the petitioner is decreed in his favour and against the defendants/respondents but without any orders as to costs.