' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ABBASI, J.--- Through this civil revision petition the petitioner calls in question the judgment and decree dated 9-2-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chichawatni District Sahiwal. The petitioner further prays that the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 31-10-2009 be restored.
2. Brief facts of the instant civil revision are that the petitioner is the real son of respondent No,1 and real brother of respondent No,2. Respondent No,1 Barkat Ali alias Bohal son of Wasil was owner of land comprising of Khata No,50/71, Khatooni No,284, measuring 8 Kanals 3 Marlas, Khata No,52/74, Khatooni No,286 to 289 measuring 9 kanals and Khata No,92/72, Khatoon Nos.254 to 455 measuring 20 Kanals 8 Marlas total and measuring 37 Kanals 1 Marla. The petitioner alleged in his plaint that he wanted to get some loan from the Bank and that he wanted to mortgage the above said land with the Bank for obtaining loan. On that event he came to know that through Mutation No,1290 dated 29-9-2006 the above said land was got transferred in the name of his two real sons, Ali Ahmad son of Barkat Ali and Allah Ditta son of Barkat Ali.
3. The respondent No,1 filed a declaratory suit assailing Mutation No,1290 dated 29-9-2006 alleging it void, without consideration, fabricated, based on fraud, illegal and unlawful, it should be cancelled. He further prayed that defendants Ali Ahmad and Allah Ditta, present petitioner has no concern with the property of respondent No,1, real father of the defendants. It was further alleged in the plaint that through the 'Punchyiar two real sons were asked to get cancelled the mutation and return the property in the name of their father. Ali Ahmad respondent No,2 filed the conceding written statement that he has no objection in decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondent No,1, real father of the petitioner. Allah Ditta, present petitioner, filed contesting written statement alleging in the written statement that respondent filed his suit at the instance of respondent No,2. In the light of the divergent pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the Mutation No,1290 dated 29-9-2006 was effected on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation against the facts and law and liable to be cancelled and plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for declaration along with permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of ac:ion to file the instant suit? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff has alienated the disputed property through his own will? OPD
(4) Relief.
' In order to prove their case the petitioner and the respondents produced their oral as well as documentary evidence. Subsequently the parties recorded their statements on 31-10-2009 that suit be disposed of in the light of their statements.
4. On 31-10-2009 Allah Ditta present petitioner/defendant No,2 in the suit recorded his statement which is reproduced below:-- "It is stated that I have got no objection in case the property alienated in favour of the defendants in view of mutation No,1290 dated 29-9-2006 may be transferred in favour of the plaintiff/my real father namely Barkat Ali alias Bosal with the condition that plaintiff would not alienate their land to any third person and also would not transfer any portion of this land to any one of his children including defendant No,1 and all the parties would succeed their respective share of inheritance after the death of my father/plaintiff and plaintiff would give land to the defendants on Theka/tenancy proportionally and would also not give this land to any other person for cultivation."
' And Barkat Ali respondent No,1 in this revision petition also recorded his statement on the same day which is as under:-- "It is stated that above said offer of the defendant No,2 is accepted and I would not alienate the impugned property to any third person during my life time and would bound myself of this compromise."
' After recording of statement of present petitioner and plaintiff the learned trial Court passed order dated 31-10-2009 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff in terms of the statement of present petitioner and plaintiff father of the present petitioner. Ali Ahmad defendant did not record his statement.
5. Against the judgment and decree dated 31-10-2009 passed by the learned trial Court two appeals were filed one by Barkat Ali titled Barkat Ali v. Ali Ahmad and others by Ali Ahmad titled "Ali Ahmad v. Barkat Ali and others. The learned Additional District Judge, Chichawatni decided both the appeals through single judgment dated 9-2-2010. With regard to appeal titled Ali Ahmad v.
Barkat Ali and others, the learned Additional District Judge observed as under:-- "Ali Ahmad respondent No,1 who has already filed a conceding written statement has no locus standi to assail the condition placed on appellant Barkat Ali because Barkat Ali himself has admitted the placement of conditions regarding further alienation etc. Therefore, appeal filed by Ali Ahmad respondent, titled "Ali Ahmad v. Barkat Ali etc." having no force and locus standi is hereby dismissed."
' While admitting the appeal filed by Barkat Ali titled Barkat Ali v. Ali Ahmad etc. The learned Additional District Judge decided the same as under:--- "As far as the appeal filed by Barkat Ali appellant is concerned, he has assailed the judgment under appeal on the ground that the conditions mentioned therein are against law and the trial Court has passed partial decree. Record evidences that respondent No,1 has filed conceding written statement whereas respondent No,2 got recorded his statement regarding cancellation of mutation and transfer of land in favour of his father (appellant), therefore, in view of the matter the learned trial Court has to pass the decree in respect of the land, in toto, not partial. Hence taking cognizance of the statement of respondent No,2 dated 31-1-2009 and conceding written statement filed by respondent No,1 the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Court is modified to the effect that suit filed by the appellant shall stand decreed in favour of the appellant against the respondents in toto in respect of disputed land. The appellant himself has conceded the conditions mentioned in the statement of respondent No,2 Allah Ditta, therefore, now he is estopped by his words and conduct to change the same which he himself has admitted. It is worth mentioning that during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that respondents are not paying the lease amount, therefore, it is held that in case of refusal of lease amount on behalf of respondents, the appellant will be entitled to lease out his land according to his sweet will as he cannot be deprived from the fruits of his land. The judgment under appeal is modified and appeal filed by the appellant Barkat Ali is disposed of accordingly."
' This revision petition is filed by Allah Ditta, the real son of Barkat Ali assailing the judgment and decree dated 9-2-2010.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Additional District Judge illegally and unlawful modified the judgment and decree dated 31-10-2009 passed by learned trial Court as it was a consenting decree as Barkat Ali respondent No,1 and Allah Ditta petitioner recorded their statements and in the light of statements recorded -by them the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the learned Additional District Judge on appeal filed by Ali Ahmad the other real brother of Allah Ditta modified the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court ignoring the evidence on file decreed the suit of Barkat Ali respondent No,1 against his son present petitioner and Ali Ahmad, decreed the suit in toto observing that learned trial Court committed illegality in decreeing the suit partially. Learned counsel contends that the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is based on misreading and non-reading of evidence. The defendant/respondent No,2 had filed collusive written statement to deprive the petitioner from his share in the property.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. In the instant case there is a dispute between the father and his two real sons Ali Ahmad and Allah Ditta with regard to property in dispute which was transferred in the name of Allah Ditta and Ali Ahmad through mutation No,1290 dated 29-9-2006 which mutation the real father assailed through a civil suit; at one stage one son Allah Ditta recorded his statement with some condition and father Barkat Ali respondent No,1 gave consent to that and the learned trial Court partially decreed the suit of the plaintiff Barkat Ali alias Bohal son of Wasil imposing some condition that in the life time Barkat Ali will not alienate the land in dispute or will not lease the same to any other except the defendant Ali Ahmad son of Barkat Ali. The question as to whether the learned trial Court could impose some condition or restriction on Barkat Ali alias Bohal son of Wasil, the real owner of the property, the learned trial Court had come to the conclusion that Mutation No,1290 dated 29-9-2006 was entered on the basis of fraud, was not affective on the rights of the plaintiff respondent No,1 who is the real owner of the property in dispute. In a life time the owner of the property can dispose of the property in whatever manner he wants to dispose it of; so the condition imposed on Barkat Ali with regard to transfer of his own property is beyond the law of the land. In the life time of father, the real sons cannot claim any share in the said property. The inheritance will go to the legal heirs on the demise of the father. One does not know whether father will die first or any son or both of them will die first. It is only in the knowledge of "Almighty Allah" who will die first or who will die later. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge is quite legal, just and rational and within the parameters of law. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly observed that:-- "Record evidences that respondent No,1 has filed conceding written statement whereas respondent No,2 got recorded his statement regarding cancellation of mutation and transfer of land in favour of his father (appellant), therefore, in view of the matter the learned trial Court has to pass the decree in respect of the land, in toto, not partial."
' The finding is quite legal, rational and convincing. Further the learned Additional District Judge bound down the father Barkat Ali to accept the condition which he himself imposed upon him to the effect that:-- "The appellant himself has conceded the conditions mentioned in the statement of respondent No,2 Allah Dita, therefore, now he is estopped by his words and conduct to challenge the same which he himself has admitted."
9. In the light of above discussion this civil revision is meritless and is dismissed in limine.