'RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.---Through this revision petition, petitioners/plaintiffs have assailed the judgment and decree dated 21-9-1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Duniyapur whereby he has dismissed the suit for declaration of the petitioners and judgment and decree dated 25-3-1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lodhran whereby appeal was dismissed.
2. The matter in contention relates to two mutations, the first being mutation No,303 entered on 1- 9-1962 and sanctioned on 15-10-1962 relating to land measuring 90 Kanals 13 Marlas situated in Mauza Tahir Bhutta, Tehsil Duniyapur and mutation No 241 entered on 8-11-1962 and sanctioned on 10-11-1962 relating to land measuring 17 Kanals 11 Marlas situated in Mauza Qutabpur, Tehsil Duniyapur.
3. The land in Tahir Bhutta was free from encumbrances and was owned by Mst. Inayat Bibi, who was the maternal grandmother (Nani) of Nawab Khan plaintiff/petitioner. The land in Mauza Qutabpur, however, was encumbered by a mortgage in respect of one half thereof and was owned by Khuda Bukhsh respondent. Khuda Bukhsh and the petitioner Nawab Khan are related to each other.
4. It is the respondent's claim that the land in Mauza Tahir Bhutta was exchanged by Mst. Inayat Bibi with the land in Mauza Qutabpur owned by the respondent. According to the respondent, the two mutations Nos, 303 and 241 reflected the exchange and were duly entered in the revenue record.
The claim of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that the two mutations were obtained fraudulently by Khuda Buksh respondent. It is also the petitioner's contention that the mutations were concealed by Khuda Bukhsh respondent to continue to pay mehsool first to Mst. Inayat Bibi and then to the parents of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it was only in 1989 that the respondent stopped making payment whereafter he became aware of the above noted mutations. He filed an earlier suit, which was withdrawn on account of misjoinder of causes of action and parties with permission to file a fresh suit. The permission was granted subject to payment of Rs,200 as costs whereafter the present action was initiated on 13-2-1993.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. He has, in particular, referred to the impugned mutations, which are Exh.P.1 and Exh,P.4 on the record. In respect of mutation No,303, he has emphasized the discrepancies therein. He has firstly pointed out that although mutation No,303 was entered on 1-9- 1962 and was sanctioned on 15-10-1962, it contains a mention of the other mutation No,2541 (Exh.P.1) which was entered and sanctioned subsequent to the mutation No,303 (Exh.P.4), According to the learned counsel, the fraudulent nature of the mutation is established from this material flaw because the subsequently entered mutation No,241 could not possibly have found mention in mutation No,303 which was sanctioned earlier, in addition, learned counsel has pointed out that mutation No,303 was sanctioned in presence of Mst. Inayat Bibi and Khuda Bukhsh in the common assembly when the mutation was first presented before the Tehsildar who has recorded that the two parties had acknowledged the exchange as well as mutual delivery of possession of exchanged land. The parties purportedly were identified by Muhammad Khan, Lumberdar of Chak No,372-WB. Learned counsel has argued that Muhammad Khan was not the Lumberdar of Mauza Tahir Bhutta nor did he belong to the Bradari of Mst. Inayat Bibi and as such, he could not possibly have identified her. He further contended that under the provision of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, the common assembly for the purpose of sanctioning mutation had to be held in the Mauza in which the land was situated and thumb impressions/signatures were required to be taken of the parties involved. He also contended that the identification of the parties was required to be made by the Lumberdar of the particular Mauza in which the land was situated or by other respectables of the village concerned. On the basis of the foregoing, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the mutation No 303 could not be treated as authentic as it had violated each of the important provisions of section 42 of the land Revenue Act, 1967. Furthermore, Muhammad Khan who purportedly identified Mst. Inayat Bibi, was not produced as a witness by the respondent/ defendant.
6. Likewise in respect of mutation No,241 learned counsel pointed out that even this mutation was patently fraudulent and contained major discrepancies and deviations from the prescribed rules and procedure. In the first instance, he pointed out that the said mutation No,241 was entered showing exchange of land under mutation No,304 dated 15-10-1962 as opposed to mutation No,303. The reference to mutation No,304 instead twice; firstly, in column No,13 of the register of mutations and secondly, in the report of the Patwari entered in Column No,15. Additionally, learned counsel argued that although Mst, Inayat Bibi and Khuda Bukhsh respondent were shown to be present in the common assembly, their thumb impressions were not taken as required by law.
Moreover, the identification of the parties was done by Ramzan Khan, who was Lumberdar of Mauza Rukan Dinpur and not of Mauza Qutabpur. Even this was discrepant because the report of the Patwari showed that the exchange was recorded by Hassan Khan, Lumberdar of Mauza Kotla Hassan Khan and not by Ramzan Khan.
7. Learned counsel next pointed out that it was in the year 1959 that mutation No,215 was sanctioned whereby land belonging to the petitioner and his brothers and sisters in Mauza Tahir Bhutta, was transferred to Khuda Bakhsh in exchange of land measuring 193 Kanals belonging to Khuda Bukhsh in Mauza Qutabpur. The said exchange was of equal areas of land and was reflected in mutation No,215 which is Exh.P.5 on the record. On purpose of adducing Exh.P.5 on the record was to show that thumb impressions of the parties were obtained at the time of sanctioning the mutation No,215 while no thumb impressions/ signatures were obtained when the two impugned mutations were sanctioned. The other purpose of producing mutation No,215 (Exh.P.5) was to bring on record the fact that there had taken place an admitted exchange of land between the parties in 1959 under cover of which Khuda Buksh respondent proceeded to have the impugned mutations recorded fraudulently.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below.
9. I have gone through the impugned judgments passed by the courts below as well as record.
Learned trial Court while dealing issues Nos.9 and 10 has considered all the pleas taken by the petitioners/ plaintiffs rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiffs have failed to prove the impugned mutations are against law and based on fraud. Non affixation of thumb impression or signature of the parties on the impugned mutations have not much significance. Any procedural omission cannot invalidate transaction and admitted by the parties before the Revenue officer.
Learned trial Court has rightly observed that mutations cannot be invalidated merely it was sanctioned at a place other than village where land is situated. Defendant while appearing as D.
W.1 has stated that Mst. Inayat Bibi, the maternal grand mother of the plaintiff, had exchanged her land measuring 90-Kanals 13-Marlas in Mauza Tahir Bhutta with 17 Kanals 11 Marlas land owned by the defendant with the free consent. He stated that suit land was not in possession of the same 15 years after the impugned exchanged transaction through parties. Mst. Inayat Bibi died after the impugned transaction whereupon Sarwar Khatoon v. Inayat Bibi and mother of the plaintiff assailed the impugned transaction. Her appeal was dismissed in default she compromised with the defendant. D.W.2 Abdul Ghafoor has stated that impugned exchange transaction had taken place between Mst. Inayat Bibi and Khuda Bakhsh but he did not know quantum of land exchanged. Riaz Khan appeared as D.W.3, he has also supported the impugned transaction.
Learned Appellate Court while dealing with the issues Nos.9 and 10 after considering the evidence of the parties specially the evidence of P.W.4 Nawab Khan has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff himself has negated the facts given in the plaint. Learned appellate Court has rightly observed that transaction was effected in 1962 which has been challenged through present suit, in 1993 after 31 years from the attestation of the mutation. They should have brought the suit within the stipulated time, which is 6 years, hence, both the courts below have rightly held that suit as time barred.
10. It has been alleged by the plaintiff (petitioner) in the plaint that they came to know about transaction three years before the institution of this suit. The mother of the plaintiff was in the knowledge of the transaction from the very outset and her appeal in this respect was dismissed by the competent revenue Court by order dated 9-9-1969 (Exh.D.1). According to law the period of the limitation began to run against the successors-in-interest of Mst. Inayat Bibi prior to 1969 but the plaintiffs have filed the present suit in the year 1993 which was badly barred by time. Mutations were properly sanctioned and sanctioned according to law. The requirements of section 42 of Land Revenue is fulfilled and there is no violation of law. Learned courts below have considered properly documentary evidence produced by the parties. There is no mistake while the learned Court discussed the two mutations Nos.303 and 241, the learned lower courts below have applied their judicious mind to the facts and circumstances of the case while deciding issues Nos.9 and 10 against the petitioner.
11. Perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees reveals that the conclusions arrived at by both the courts below are elaborate and are based on cogent reasons. No, misreading or non-reading of evidence, or any other legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners with the judgments rendered by the Courts below warranting interference, by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. As per the dictum of law laid down by Honourable Apex Court in cases of Aurangzeb through legal heirs and others v. Muhammad Jaffar and another (2007 SCM R 236), Shafi Muhammad and others v. Khanzada Gul and others (2007 SCM R 368) and Rashid Ahmad v.
Said Ahmad (2007 SCM R 926), concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are not open to exception unless it is established that the same suffered from any jurisdictional defect or were based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, which elements are conspicuously lacking in the present civil revision.
12. Resultantly, there being no merit in this revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.