MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 28-2-1994 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondent.
According to the plaint, the last male owner of the suit-land was Baja son of Mehna. He died issueless on 21-7-1979. The petitioners are the successors of Taja and Tahra, the brothers of said Baja while the respondent is the son of Gahra another brother of said Baja. It was stated in the plaint that the respondent got a sale Mutation No.224 attested on 5-5-1979 whereas Baja had not sold the land to him and had not appeared before the Tehsildar. An appeal filed by the petitioners was allowed by the Collector on 30-6-1980 who cancelled the mutation. However, a further appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by an Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) on 4-3-1981.
This order was stated to be illegal and void. A declaration was accordingly prayed for. The respondent pleaded a valid sale in his favour. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 8-5-1995. Learned Additional District Judge, Samundri, District. Faisalabad, dismissed the first appeal of the petitioners on 1-3-2001.
2. Learned counsel contends that the respondent had failed to prove a valid sale or a valid mutation in his favour as the requisite evidence had not been produced.
3. I have examined the copies of the records. The impugned mutation is on record as Exh.P.5 and Exh.D.1. It was entered on 5-5-1979 with reference to Report No.1000, dated 28-4-1979 of Roznamcha Waqiati. It was taken up by the Tehsildar on 5-5-1979 who attested the mutation on the identification of the vendor i,e, Baja, by Ghulam Muhammad and Najabat, LamardaRs, It has come on record that both the said Lambardars had died by the time the trial commenced in the present suit. The certified copy of the Roznamcha was produced by the respondent and admitted in evidence as Exh.D.3 without any objection. The respondent himself appeared as D.W.1 to support his case. D.W.2 is Haitam son of Noor. He stated that he was not present at the time of attestation of mutation. Nothing, therefore, turns on his statement. However, Mst. Sattan Bibi D.W.3 is, admittedly, the widow of said Baja. The learned Courts below have very correctly observed that this witness while fully supporting the sale of the land by her husband in favour of his nephew i,e, the respondent, made a statement against her own interest as she was to inherit 1/4th share in the said estate but for the sale in question. In her cross-examination, she had been made to state that she accompanied her husband to the Patwari as well as to the Tehsildar where he made the statement admitting the sale and delivery of possession which is, admittedly, with the respondent since the time of sale in the year 1979. She is equally related to both the contesting parties being the widow of their deceased uncle. To may mind, in the circumstances of the case, where both the said witnesses had died, the sale has been sufficiently proved. So far as consideration is concerned, the said widow stated that it was paid to her husband who handed over the money to her. A case for interference with the impugned judgments and decrees in the light of the said evidence on record, under section 115, C.P.C. Is not made out. The civil revision is dismissed in limine.