The plaintiffs (hereinafter called respondents) filed a civil suit in the trial Court for declaration to the effect that they are owner in possession of the suit property and the defendants (hereinafter called petitioners) have no concern with it. They also challenged inheritance Mutation No 3272 attested on 30.06.1958, Mutation No 3273 attested on 30.06.1958, Sale Mutation No. 728 attested on 12.12.1981 and Mutation No. 781 attested 16.03.1982 as wrong, void, malafide, without jurisdiction and are liable to be cancelled. In alternate they prayed for permanent injunction from restraining the defendants/petitioners from alienating the suit property. In the plaint they had given a pedigree table. The averment in the plaint is that the suit property is the ownership of predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs and after his death devolved upon them. It is alleged that after the death of their predecessor in interest Defendants No. 1 to 8 got attested inheritance Mutation No 3272 in their favour in collusion with the revenue staff in respect of Khata No. 6493 in favour of their predecessor in interest on 22.06.1958 and later on inheritance mutation was attested after his death in their favour, in spite of the fact that neither the Defendants Nor their predecessor in interest had any concern with the suit property. It is also averred that Defendants No. 1 to 8 had sold some property vide Mutation No. 728 attested on 12.03.1981 and Mutation No. 781 attested on 16.03.1982 in favour of Defendants No. 9 & 10 which is ineffective. According to plaintiffs they are the legal heirs of Faiz Ullah, their predecessor in interest while the defendants have wrongly attested mutation in their favour which is wrong and illegal.
2. The suit was contested by concerned defendants by submitting their written statement and the pleadings of the parties resulted in the framing of following thirteen issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs have cause of action and locus standi?
2. Whether the suit is within time?
3. Whether this Court has got jurisdiction?
4 Whether the value of the suit for the purposes of Court Fees has deficiently be made?
5. Whether Defendants No. 9 & 10 are bonafide purchaser of the suit property and their rights are protected under Section 41 of T.A Act?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to sue?
7. Whether Defendants No. 9 & 10 spent Rs. 15000/- on the improvement of the suit property and in case of decree they are entitled to the cost of improvement and sale consideration?
8. Whether Shajra Nasab given in the plaint is doubtful and incorrect?
9. Whether Defendants No. 1 to 8 have spent Rs.40,000/- on the improvement of the suit property, if so, its effect?
10.Whether the suit property not maintainable?
11.Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit properly as legal heir of Faizullah and Ahmad Khan and Mutation Nos. 3272, 3273 dated 30.06.1958 and Mutation No. 726 dated 12.12.1981, Mutation No. 781 dated 16.03.1982, Fardbadar No. 501, 502 are wrong, illegal and in effective' upon the rights of the plaintiffs and liable to be cancelled?
12.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree prayed for?
13. Relief.
3. The plaintiffs/respondents produced five witnesses in support of their claim while defendant produced one witness. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on 05.09.2000.
4. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the petitioners, which was accepted on 22.10.2005 and the impugned Judgment/Decree of the learned trial Court was set aside and the suit petitioners was decreed in their favour.
5. Dissatisfied from the Judgment/Decree of the appellate Court, the petitioners/defendants filed the instant revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the pedigree table shown by the plaintiffs in their plaint is not authentic. He further argued that the Judgment/Decree of the appellate Court is based on non-reading and mis-reading of evidence and resulted in miscarriage of justice.
7. On the other, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the respondents have proved their case by producing oral as well as documentary evidence. There is no question of non-reading and misreading of evidence. It is further argued that the defendants have admitted that in lieu of the property they were to surrender some other property which has not been done.
8. Learned counsel for the parties heard and record of the case examined in the light of which my discussion is as under.
9. The grievance of the plaintiffs/respondents is that they are owner of the suit property but the defendants/petitioners No. 1 to 8 in collusion with the revenue staff inherited the property vide Mutation No. 3272 in favour of their predecessor in interest i.e Ahmad Khan, though he had no concern with the suit property. From the record it shows that the property got transferred subsequently in their favour. The pedigree table given in the plaint reflect the relationship of the parties. This shows that Faizaullah predecessor in interest of the plaintiff was owner of the properly.
The pedigree table supports the claim of the plaintiffs/respondent. Patwari Halqa appeared in the trial and produced Misl-e-Haqiat for the year 1967-68 is Ex:PW1/1 and other documents Ex:PW1/2 to Ex:PW1/11. These documents are consisted of fardjamabandi, copies from register haqdaran zamin and mutation etc. The plaintiffs/respondents also appeared through special attorney as PW3 and confirmed the contents of the plaint. As against this DW-1 who is Defendant No. 2 appeared as the only witness on behalf of the defendants. He has stated in his examination in chief that after the attestation of inheritance mutation of the property of Ahmad Khan predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, they were approached by plaintiffs for cancellation of the mutation to which the defendants replied that in lieu of this property they would exhange property situated in Kacha Mali Khel in favour of the plaintiffs. This commitment was not honoured and thereafter the present suit was filed. The defendants have failed to produce any documentary or oral evidence to show that the property promised, was delivered to the plaintiff in lieu of the property mutated in their names.
The only plea taken by defendants is that they are owners of the suit property since long, therefore, the plaintiffs have lost their ownership through prescription. This plea is not substantiated by any evidence. Moreover, pedigree table mentioned in the plaintiff has also not been controverted.
10.So keeping in view these facts, the plaintiffs are owners of the suit property and the transfer of its portion in favour of Defendants No. 9 & 10 and onward is also illegal. No mis-reading or non- reading of evidence or material illegality is established.
11.Consequently, finding no substance the instant revision. petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.