SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--- Ibrahim son of Jeeba was owner of land measuring 137 Kanals and 16 Marlas, in village Gauharwala, Tehsil Minkera, District Bhakkar. This land on the basis of the decree of the Court, dated 25-11-1979 (Exh.P.1.), mutated in favour of Faraza/respondent vide Mutation No.129, dated 25-11-1979. Respondent claims his possession qua the suit-land, since its transfer through mutation. The petitioners claim, the ownership of suit-land on the basis of exchange, and statement to that effect was recorded by the Revenue Officer on 26-4-1979 and Rapat Roznamcha (Exh.D.1) was recorded on 15-4-1979. The petitioner claims suit-land on the basis of exchange, effected through mutation. Both petitioners and respondent have competing claim, qua the suit- land which resulted into litigation, culminating into this revision petition.
2. The respondent instituted the suit for declaration to the effect that the respondent is owner in possession of the suit-land and Mutation of exchange No.129, dated 9-12-1979 is illegal and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff with a prayer of permanent injunction selling injunction.
The defendants contested the suit, filed written statement, controverted the averments of the plaint and raised various preliminary objections. Learned trial Court struck eight issues and recorded evidence of the parties, in response thereto. Learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 29-7-1984 and appeal against the decree met the same fate vide judgment and decree, dated 12-11-1987. Ibrahim who was original owner of the property was not a party before the trial Court. Learned Appellate Court summoned him and recorded his statement as C.W.1. Instant revision was filed to challenge the concurrent findings of two Courts below. The revision was allowed vide judgment of this Court, dated 8-11-2000. It was observed by this Court that the possession of the suit-land vested with the petitioners, The judgment of this Court passed at the back of the respondent was assailed by the respondent in a petition for leave to Appeal No.1538 of 2001, before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The apex Court, vide order, dated 7-12- 2005 remanded the case to this Court for fresh decision, after hearing the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Appellate Court, has misinterpreted the statement of Ibrahim as C.W.1 who admitted the transaction of exchange but explained that exchanged land was altogether different from the suit-land. Learned counsel added that the statement of C.W,1, had no significance, moreso when detail of other land had not been provided. This makes the statement of C.W.1 vague and unclear. Further the statement is outside the pleadings of the parties and as such cannot be read into evidence. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to the cases Messrs State Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. National Development Finance Corporation and others 2006 SCM R 619 and Muhammad Ameen v. Sardar Ali PLD 2006 SC 318. Learned counsel has submitted that mutation of exchange was challenged in higher forum in the hierarchy of the Revenue Department. Learned Courts below have ignored these decisions while referring to this statement of respondent as P.W.3, learned counsel submitted that the witness admitted that the decree was based on oral sale, the execution whereof was never sought. He further stated that he made an application before C.O., which was decided in his favour.
The witness in the same breath stated that the application was not decided in his favour. Learned counsel went on to argue that mutation of exchange Exh.P.2 was recorded on 15-4-1979 while suit was filed on 2-6-1981. Ibrahim had no authority to file consenting written statement as the ownership of suit property had passed on to the petitioners by that time. Learned counsel then submitted that the petitioners were not party to the suit, which was collusive and the same is not judgment in rem, thus, does not in any manner affect the rights of the petitioners, Learned counsel while referring to the case of Muhammad and 19 others v. Muhammad Hayat and 8 others 2006 CLC 907, has contended that a decree which determined entitlement of a party would be legally operative whether the same reflected in the Revenue Record or not.
4. As against this learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has contended that both the Courts below have rightly decided the controversy and there is no misreading and non-reading of evidence. It has also been argued that the concurrent findings of the Courts below cannot be disturbed in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
5. It is significant to note that both the parties derive their title qua the suit-land from Ibrahim. It has already been mentioned that the respondent/plaintiff based her claim on decree, dated 25-11- 1979, which was passed in a suit filed on 17-7-1979, where the aforesaid Ibrahim (defendant) filed conceding written statement. Consequently, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed.
As against this according to the petitioner the aforesaid Ibrahim had appeared before the Revenue Officer on 26-4-1979 and exchanged his land with the petitioner on 15-4-1979. The mutation of exchange was entered on 26-4-1979, which was subsequently, sanctioned on 9-12-1979.
6. So the conflicting claims of the parties are based on decree of Civil Court and mutation of the Revenue Department. It may be mentioned that a mutation has no match to a decree of Civil Court. A decree had been defined in section 2(2), C.P.C. It reads as under:--- "'Decree' means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing Sit, conclusively determines the right of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final..."
Inversely a mutation is merely for fiscal purposes and is not a document of title. It would thus, follow that a mutation cannot equate or compete a decree. It may be added that a decree is a final adjudication of the controversy. It holds the field unless it is set aside by the higher forum or is annulled in a petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. But the decree: dated 25-11-1999 has remained unscathed and with the flux of time and it has attained finality. As such the aforesaid decree passed earlier in time thus, sanctioning of mutation of exchange outweighs dwarfs of the aforesaid mutation.
7. Notwithstanding the above the aforesaid Ibrahim while appearing before the lower Appellate Court minded no words in admitting that he had first sold the suit-land to the respondent and thereafter the petitioner had obtained his thumb-impression on a blank paper. He has explained that the land which he had purportedly exchanged with the petitioners is different from the suit- land. He also stated that the respondent is in possession of the suit-land. Even according to the Revenue Record the respondent is in possession of the suit-land. Mere fact that the mutation of exchange was upheld in the hierarchy of Revenue Authorities, is no ground to non-suit the respondent/plaintiff.
8. In sum the respondent/plaintiff had succeeded in proving that he was owner in possession of the suit-land and the impugned mutation of exchange was of no effect. As such his suit was rightly decreed and the appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree was justifiably dismissed.
There is no misreading and non-reading of evidence. No illegality or material irregularity is shown to have been committed by the learned Courts below. Their findings are unexceptional.
9. For the foregoing, instant petition is without any substance or force and is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.