IJAZ UL AHSAN,J--- The respondents filed a suit against the petitioners seeking a declaration along with perpetual injunction relating to land measuring 12-Kanals situated in Village Masoo Sharif, Tehsil and District Nankana Sahib. Subsequently, the petitioners also filed a suit regarding the same property seeking the same relief. The case of the respondents was that they were owners of the suit-land and the petitioners were in possession as tenants. When the petitioners refused to give a share in the crop, the respondents got suspicious and made the necessary inquires. At the stage it transpired that the petitioners had raised a claim to be owners of the suit property. The petitioners had allegedly managed to manipulate the Revenue Record and had got Mutation No,290 dated 4- 3-2009 entered in their favour in collusion with the Halqa Patwari. The said mutation, however, was neither attested nor verified in accordance with law. Further it lacked signatures or thumb impressions of the vendor. It alio A came to the knowledge of the respondents that on the basis of fake and frivolous mutation, the petitioners had entered their names in the register Haqdaran Zamin. The stand taken by the respondents was that they had never sold the property in question nor had they received any consideration for the same. They alleged that Mutation No,290 dated 4- 3-1981 was fake, illegal and fictitious. The respondents sought a B declaration and permanent injunction in respect of their rights in the suit property.
2. The petitioners submitted their written statement and inter alia took the position that the respondents had no locus standi, the suit was barred by time and that the suit property had been purchased by them for a consideration of Rs,30,000 in C the year 1981. They also stated that mutation No,290 was entered with the free consent of the respondents and that the petitioners had been owners in possession of the suit property since then.
3. On 24-4-2009 the learned trial Court framed as many as nine issues. Issue No,1 was the most material. Onus to prove the same was placed on the respondents. It would be instructive to reproduce issue No,1, which was cast as follows:-- "Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration that they are owners in possession of suit property and Mutation No,290 dated 4-3-1981 is fake and frivolous and has no effect on rights of the plaintiffs. If so, on what grounds and effect?"
' The parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned trial Court examined Mutation No,290 dated 4-3-1981 which was relied upon by the petitioners for the purpose of claiming ownership. It found that the document had no verification and was incomplete in various respects including absence of any thumb impression or signatures of the vendor on the backside of the alleged mutation. The document, in the opinion of the trial Court was highly doubtful. In the absence of thumb-impressions or signatures of the vendor and the vendee and lack any corroborative evidence in any form, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that Mutation No,290 dated 4-3-1981 was fake and not worthy of reliance. Therefore, it did not confer any proprietary rights on the petitioners. On the basis of this finding and failure of the petitioner to prove a sale transaction that could justify Mutation No,290, issue No,3 which related to the right of the petitioner to seek relief of declaration and permanent injunction was also decided against the petitioners. After a detailed and exhaustive analysis of the documentary and oral evidenced produced, the learned trial Court decreed the suit o the respondents and dismissed the suit of the petitioners.
4. The findings of the trial Court were alleged in appeal. The appellate Court reappraised the entire evidence and came to the same conclusion. The learned appellate Court found that Mutation No, 290 dated 4-3-1981 was fake and the petitioners had failed to establish and prove their case in any manner whatsoever. The learned appellate Court also observed that in Exh. P.3 the names of the petitioners were mentioned as tenants/cultivators and not as E owners of the disputed property.
He, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the appeal.
5. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also gone through the judgments of the lower Courts and perused the evidence produced by the parties in support of their respective claims.
6. The case of both petitioners hinges on Mutation No, 290, dated 4-3-1981. The said document is in-complete, . Unattested, without verification and even lacks signatures or thumb impressions of the vendor/vendee which are necessary to lend any authenticity to a document of this nature. In addition, the document is required to be verified and attested by the Revenue authorities after completing various procedural formalities. The document in its present form as produced in the Court, does not inspire confidence and does not deserve to be relied upon in order to determine rights of ownership in the property. I have noticed that other than Mutation No,290 there is no credible and reliable evidence available on record that may even remotely support the case of the G petitioner or show that the property in question was sold/transferred by the respondents in favour of the petitioners. The distinct impression that with one gets from a perusal of the evidence on record and pleadings of the parties points towards an effort on the part of the tenants/ cultivators to hoodwink the landlords/ owners in connivance with less than scrupulous officials of the Revenue Department.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not be able to persuade me to take a different view than the one concurrently taken by the two Courts below. I have not found anything to persuade me to hold that the learned lower Courts have misread the evidence, H acted illegally or with material irregularity in arriving at their conclusions. The petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.