' MAULVI ANWARUL -HAQ, J.-- This judgment shall decide Civil Revision No,834-1996 and Writ Petition No,9238- 1995 as both the proceedings were ordered to be heard together.
2. On 13-12-1988 the respondents filed a suit against the petitioner. In the plaint it was stated that the respondents purchased 5-1/2 Marlas of land each vide two registered sale deeds, dated 24-1- 1983 and that this land was located in Square No,49 Killa No,10/1 as per Jamabandi for the year 1968-69. The land was purchased from Muhammad Hussain son of Allah Din. However, in the sale deeds square number came to be recorded as 48 instead of 49 and consequently two corrigendums were got registered on 14-7-1987. It was then stated that the petitioner filed a suit and obtained a stay order and managed to forcibly occupy. 4-1/2 Marlas out of the said 11 Marlas of land. A decree for possession was accordingly prayed for. The petitioner in his written statement explained that Anwar and Manzoor sons of Karam Din were the owners of land in Square No,49 Killa No,10/1 and that the respondents purchased one Kanal of land from the said Anwar and Manzoor vide mutation No,788 that has been attested and incorporated in the revenue records. Regarding the remaining one Kanal of land, he has entered into an agreement with the said owners and had paid them the consideration. He further stated that the said Anwar and Manzoor were also owners in land measuring 8 Kanals 18 Marlas comprising Square No,48 and Killa No,10 and that Muhammad Hussain son of Allah Din purchased one Kanal out of the said land vide registered sale deed No,845, dated 9-2-1978. Mutation No,961 was attested on 26-6-1979 on the basis of this sale deed and out of this land, he sold 11 Marlas of land to the present respondents vide mutations Nos.2737 and 2738. The precise plea was that since Muhammad Hussain was not an owner in Killa No,10/1 of Square No,49, there was no question of his selling any land to the respondents from the said Square number. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties, was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 25-1-1992. A learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, dismissed the first appeal filed by the petitioner on 28-9-1995.
3. On 1-10-1988 the respondents filed an application before the Collector, Sheikhupura, for review of mutation No,978 (this was the second mutation that was attested on the basis of sale deed, dated 9-2-1978 in favour of Muhammad Hussain) as also mutation No,5534 ,(this mutation was attested in favour of the petitioners 3 to 8 in W.P.No,9238-1995 who purchased the remaining 9 Marlas from Muhammad Hussain vide sale deed, dated 13-9-1987). This application was dismissed by the Collector on 13-9-1992. However, the respondents filed an appeal, which was allowed by an Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, on 28-12-1992 who held that Muhammad Hussain had managed to get sanctioned two mutations on the basis of one registered sale deed. A revision filed by the said writ petitioners was dismissed by a Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, on 13-2-1995. W.P. No,9238 of 1995 has been filed to question the said orders of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner.
4. Mr. M.M. Alain, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no evidence on record that Muhammad Hussain had purchased any land in Square No,49 Killa No,10/1 and this being so, the impugned judgments and decrees, are not sustainable. Mr. Shamim Abbas Bokhari, learned counsel for the respondents, while finding it difficult to repel the said argument of Mr. M.M. Alam, has taken the stand that so far as the one Kanal purchased by the petitioner is concerned, there is no denial of the said title and as such if it at all it was for the said Anwar and Manzoor to raise the objection. The precise contention is that petitioner has no locus standi either to file the suit or to question the said mutations. Mr. M.M. Alam rejoins to state that the petitioner having admittedly purchased one Kanal of land in Square No,49 Killa No,10/1 has the requisite locus standi at least to file the application for review of the said mutations.
5. I have examined the copies of the records appended with the civil revision as well as the writ petition, with the assistance of the learned counsel of the parties. The position that emerges is that as per entries in the Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1968-69 Exh.P.4, Anwar and Manzoor sons of Karam Din are recorded to be owners in possession of Square No,49 of Killa No,10/1. This land measures two Kanals and its old number is recorded as 48/10/1. According to register Haqdaran Zamin for the same year Exh.P.5, Anwar and Manzoor are also recorded the owners of Square No,48 Killa No,10 measuring 8 Kanals 18 Marlas. The old number is recorded to be 47/1/10.
Vide registered sale deed No,845, dated 9-2-1978 (Exh.P.6 and Exh.D.1) Anwar and Manzoor sold one Kanal of land from Square No,48 Killa No,10/1 to Muhammad Hussain with reference to copy of register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1968-69. The Khewat and Khatuni numbers are 5 and 10 respectively. I may note here that according to Exh.P.5 the Khewat and Khatuni numbers of Square No,48 Killa No,10 are also the same i.e, 5 and 10 respectively. However, the total area of the said Killa number is mentioned as two Kanals in both the said documents. On the basis of this registered sale deed, in first instance, mutation No,961 was attested in favour of Muhammad Hussain son of Allah Din in column of possession pertaining to Square No,48 Killa No,10. Thereafter mutation No,978 was attested in favour of Muhammad Hussain in column of ownership pertaining to Square No,49 Killa No,10/1. Vide registered sale deed, dated 24--1-1983 (Exh.P.7) Muhammad Hussain sold 5-1/2 Marlas to Ghulam Sarwar respondent and vide registered sale deed of even, dated Exh.P.8, he sold 5-1/2 marlas to Muhammad Ramzan respondent. These two sale deeds contained the description of the land as being sold from Square No,48 Killa No, 10/1 measuring 8 Kanals 18 Marlas (11/178 share). On the basis of these sale deeds two mutations were attested in favour of the respondents and these were incorporated in the column of possession of said Square No,48 Killa No, 10 measures 8 Kanals 18 Marlas. The copies of the corrigendums registered on 14-7-1987 are Exhs.P.l and P.2 were executed by Muhammad Hussain and these narrate that, in fact, land has been sold from Square No, 49 Killa No, 10/1* measuring two Kanals.
6. I have already stated above that there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner did purchase one Kanal of land from the said Anwar and Manzoor from Square No,48 Killa No, 10/1 measuring two Kanals which sale has been incorporated in copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1978-79.
7. A reading of the evidence does go to show that Anwar and Manzoor were the owners of the entire Square No,49 Killa No, 10/1 measuring two Kanals. They sold one Kanal to Muhammad Ismail petitioner and regarding the remaining one Kanal the said dispute has arisen. To my mind, one thing is certain that the said remaining one Kanal by all means vests in Anwar and Manzoor. The petitioner has tried to take a plea that he has entered into an agreement with the said Anwar and Manzoor and has paid them the consideration but there is no proof of the said fact on the record.
Another significant aspect of the matter is that there is nothing on the record to suggest that Anwar and Manzoor ever objected to the said corrigendums or ever denied that they have not sold the land from Square No,49 Killa No, 10/1 to Muhammad Hussain.
8. Of course what has happened is, as noted by the additional Commissioner (revenue) that by design or otherwise somehow or the other two mutations came to be attested on the basis of the same sale seed (Exh.P.6 and Exh.D.1) in favour of Muhammad Husaain one from square No,48 and the other from square No,49.
9. So far as the civil revision is concerned, I have no manner of doubt in my mind that in view of the admission of title of the petitioner to the extent of one Kanal of land in Square No,49, and in the absence of any evidence that he has any title in the remaining land, he has no lucus standi whatsoever to question the title of the respondents in the said land in Square No,
49. The corrigendums have been registered and further incorporated in the revenue records without any objection whatsoever from Anwar and Manzoor. However, at the same time, the learned Courts below have erred in passing a decree for possession of the said land inasmuch as both the parties are co-sharers in the said suit land and the only manner in which the respondents can get separate possession, is by filing a suit for partition and getting separate possession of their 11 Mqrlas of land which they have purchased from Muhammad Hussain claiming under Anwar and Manzoor.
10. Now coming to the said W.P.9238- 1995, as stated by me earlier, somehow or the other two mutations i.e, 961 (Annex:2-D to the writ petition) and 978 (Annex:C to the writ petition) came to be entered and attested on the basis of the same sale deed No,845, dated 9-2-1978 in favour of Muhammad Hussain. The Additional Commissioner and consequently the Member, Board of Revenue, are right in holding that the review of mutation has to be made. However, they have lost sight of the fact that the said Anwar and Manzoor have not raised any objection to the said corrigendums. They have not filed any application for review. This being so, the records have to be corrected in accordance with the said established position. I have already held above that the sale in favour of the writ petitioners had been made from Square No, 49 Killa No, 10/1 measuring two Kanals. One Kanal was sold by Anwar and Manzoor to Muhammad Ismail (the revision petitioner and respondent No,3) in the writ petition. 11 Marlas were sold to Muhammad Ramzan and Ghulam Sarwar. Remaining 9 Marlas were sold to the remaining petitioners in the writ petition. This being so, the entries in Square No,48 Killa No, 10 measuring 8 Kanals 18 Marlas should be restored in favour of Anwar and Manzoor.
11. In the light of the above discussion, the civil revision is partly allowed inasmuch as while holding that 11 Marlas of land has been sold to Muhammad. Ramzan and Ghulam Sarwar petitioners from Square No,49 Killa No, 10/1 measuring two Kanals, I set aside the decree for possession with the observation that the said vendees can get separate possession by filing a suit for partition!
W.P.No,9238-1995 is also disposed of accordingly with the observations noted in the foregoing paras. No orders as to costs.