' This revision calls in question the judgment and decree dated 12-5-197 passed by the learned District Judge, Jhelum.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, namely, Mst. Ghulam Fatima instituted a suit against the respondents in the Court of a learned Civil Judge, Jhelum for a declaration to the effect that she was the owner in possession of 4 kanals, 13 marlas of land situate in village Dariala, Tehsil and District Jhelum having purchased the same for consideration from respondent No. 1 and that the sale deed registered on 15-9-1969 by respondent No, 2 was illegal and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff with consequential relief of a permanent Injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff on the land in dispute.
3. The suit was resisted by the respondents whereupon the learned trial Court framed issues which read as under :
(i) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form in view of the preliminary objection No. 1 ? 0. P. D.
(ii) Whether defendant No, 2 is a bona fide purchaser of the suit land for valuable consideration ? If so, to what effect ? 0. P. D. No, 2.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff has valued the suit incorrectly for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ? If so, what should be the correct valuation ? 0. P. D.
(iv) Whether the plaintiff purchased the suit property from the defendant No. 1 for a sum of Rs, 1260.00 and paid the consideration to defendant No. 1 about 2 months prior to the institution of this suit ? 0. P. P.
(v) Whether the defendant No. 1 put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property in pursuance of the alleged sale ? 0. P. P.
(vi) Relief.
4. The learned trial Court found Issue No, (i) against the plaintiff. Issues Nos. (ii) and (iii) were held to be redundant. Issues Nos. (iv) and (v) were also decided against the plaintiff. Resultantly, by its judgment dated 8-1-1972, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs.
5. The plaintiff Mst. Ghulam Fatima feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 8-1-1972 preferred an appeal to the learned District Judge, Jhelurn. She having died during the pendency of the appeal the present petitioners were brought on record as her legal representatives, vide order dated 2-1-1973.
6. The learned District Judge, Jhelum concurred in the findings of the learned trial Court and by his judgment dated 12-5-1973 dismissed the appeal with costs. Hence the present revision
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended. Firstly,-that vide Exh. P. 1 and Exh. P. 3 the certified copies of the kahasra girdawaris which showed possession of the predecessor-intiinterest of the petitioners over the land in dispute and also mentioned the entering of mutation No, 970 the sale stood established and a finding contrary thereto by the Courts below is not well-founded ; secondly,-that the Courts below did not advert to an important document Exh. D. 1 which also established the sale in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and that the learned District Judge merely made a passing reference to this exhibit without considering it in its proper perspective ; thirdly,-that possession of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest having been established, section 110 of Evidence Act was applicable and title to the land was also established ; and lastly,-that the subsequent sale in favour of respondent No, 2 by respondent No. 1 being with the knowledge of the first sale was of no effect and would in no manner detract from the validity of the title of the first purchaser, namely. Mst. Ghulam Fatima.
8, On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that there are concurrent findings on points of fact as regards the nontipayment of price of the land by the predecessort-or- interest of the petitioner to respondent No. 1, non-delivery of possession and about respondent No. 1, having not entered into any contract of sale with the petitioners predecessor-in-interest and as such those findings could not be challenged in the revisional, jurisdiction of this Court.
' He next argued that Exh. D. I has been properly read and looked into by the first Appellate Court and it has been held that this at the most indicated the entry of mutation but then entry alone would not confer a title.
' The learned counsel also argued that the sale by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No, 2 was effected much before the alleged sale in favou of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest and that it was she who with the abetment of petitioner No. 1 tried to grab the land. The learned counse invited or attention to the testimony of P. W. :1 Subedar Sardar Khan witness, of the petitioners themselves who in unequivocal terms stated the contract of sale of the land in dispute had been entered into by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No, 2 before the alleged contract in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. This testimony, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted, was not questioned or rebutted by the plaintiff in any manner and thus this fact stood conclusively establish and knocks the bottom out of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
9. Having given consideration to the controversy involved I find that th contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners have no force.
10. Documents Exh. P. 1 and Exh. P. 3 which are copies of khasra-igirdawari and Jamabandi respectively do not in any manner establish the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute and merely indicate tha Mutation No, 970 had been entered into and that too without any indicatio at whose instance.
' In so far as actual physical possession was concerned, it was shown to be of a tenant. The learned Courts below had considered these document's and having read the same conjunctively with the other evidence brought or record and discussed by the trial Court under issue (iv) it was held tha neither the possession nor payment of price had been established by the plaintiff.
' It has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that both these points relate to controversies of fact and having been co currently found against the plaintiffs there is hardly any justification for the Court to interfere therewith in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
' As regards Exh. D. 1, suffice it to say that it had been considered by t learned first Appellate Court and the correct inference drawn therefrom th although a reference is there in the said document about the entering mutation but then the mere entry would not confer any title on the plaintiff.
' In view of the foregoing discussion the contentions "firstly" and "secondly" therefore fail.
11. As regards the contention "thirdly", it may be observed that the petitioners have failed to prove the possession of their predecessor-in-interes over the land in dispute. The question of application of section 110 of t Evidence Act would obviously not be attracted.
12. Adverting now to the contention "lastly", the evidence of the plaintiff as already referred to above, viz. The testimony of P. W. 3 Subedar rdar Khan itself establishes that the contract of sale in favour of respondent o. 2 was earlier in time.
Apart altogether from the above position it is also to be seen that whilst lie sale allegedly effected by Pahlwan Shah respondent No. 1 in favour of st. Ghulam Fatima the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was oral and not admitted by the vendor ; the sale by respondent No. 1 in favour f respondent No, 2 was through a registered document and consistently admitted by respondent No.
1. In the absence of the factum of the payment f price and possession no inference could be drawn that any sale had been acted by respondent No. 1 in favour of the petitioners predecessor-in terest.
That being so, the last contention of the petitioners also fails.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs.