1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- This Revision Petition assails judgments/decrees dated 22-4-2010 and 21-11- 2009, passed by learned Addl. District Judge and Civil Judge Skardu, respectively. The impugned decrees are based on concurrent findings by both the lower Courts.
2. ' I heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the pleadings and other record of the case. Perusal of the record and the pleadings transpire that the parties are agreed on the points that: (a) the present respondent was initially having ownership over the disputed land. (b) a sale transaction in respect of the disputed land between the father of the petitioners and the present respondent has taken place for consideration of Rs,1000 (c) the disputed land is in actual possession of the occupancy tenants since their ancestors (d) the father and after his death the present petitioners have received lagan of the disputed land from the tenants since the sale transition and are receiving the lagan upto date.
3. ' The parties are at variance on the points that: (a) the present respondent claims that the sale transaction was made only in respect of receiving the lagan of the disputed land from the tenants for 15 years and ownership of the disputed land rests with the respondent as the ownership has not been transferred to the father of the present petitioneRs, (b) the father of the present petitioners claimed that he had purchased the ownership of the disputed land from the present respondent in the years 1969 and 1970 for the consideration of total Rs,1000 and the transaction has been acknowledged by the present respondent vide unregistered documents dated 16-10-1969 and 15- 6-1970 and since then the father and after his death the petitioners are receiving the lagan of the disputed land as owners and the ownership has been transferred in the name of the father of the petitioners through Mutations Nos.440 and 2127 and he has been shown the owner of the disputed land in Jumabandi in the year 2000.
4. ' The suit is for declaration of ownership of the present respondent cum for perpetual injunction to the effect to restrained the defendant from claiming ownership over the disputed land and also for cancellation of the above stated mutation as per "head note" of the plaint. The plaint has been summed up with the prayer as:--- {{URDU TEXT}} {{URDU TEXT}} ' The "cause of action" against the defendant has been shown from the year 2000, when the respondent asked the tenants to pay him the lagan of the disputed land, they replied that defendant has received lagan as claiming ownership over the disputed land. The respondent also stated in his statement before the Court that when he asked the tenants to pay the lagan to him.
5. The tenants replied that he had sold the ownership of the disputed land to the defendant and the defendant received the lagan. (at this juncture it is pertinent to note that the disputed land is admittedly in permissive and actual possession of the occupancy - tenants and either party to the suit can get lagan only of the disputed land as token of the ownership).
6. ' The learned trial Judge after going through procedural steps framed as many as 8 issues, including the prayer. The parties adduced witnesses pro and contra and the defendant relied on documentary evidence also. The trial Court did not exhibit documentary evidence except the above stated mutations, holding the same documents inadmissible as the documents are not registered and the documents having no signature of the present respondent. The suit is decreed in favour of the present respondent. The decree is upheld by the 1st Appellate Court, hence this revision petition before this Court.
7. I feel that both the Courts below have ignored or wrongly reached to the conclusion on the two fatal legal points which are required to be discussed and given findings properly i.e. (a) whether the suit in the present form can be decreed in favour of the plaintiff (b) whether the suit is .Within time? The present respondent has claimed mere declaration of the ownership over the disputed land and also has asked to restrain the defendant from claiming himself to be owner of the disputed land by cancelling the. Mutations Nos.440 and 2127 in his name. He claimed nothing about his entitlement to receive lagan from the tenants of the disputed land by restraining them to pay the lagan to the petitioners, neither he has made the tenants party to the suit nor he has prayed to restrain the petitioners from receiving the lagan of the disputed land. The record of the case shows that the disputed land is in actual possession of the tenants and ownership of the disputed land can be established by receiving the rent/lagan as token of the ownership. The plaintiff has not asked the Court to order a perpetual injunction against the tenants of the disputed land while he himself has admitted in the plaint that he filed the suit when the tenants denied to pay the lagan to him. The plaintiff has again not asked to issue a perpetual injunction against the defendant or his legal heirs restraining him/them to receive lagan from the tenants as such the plaintiff could not be declared to be owner of the disputed land under the prohibitory clause of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
8. The plaintiff has admitted in the plaint that he has entered into a sale transaction with the father of the petitioner in respect of the lagan only of the disputed land for consideration of Rs,1000 and the transaction was for limited period of 15 years which ended in the year 2000, but he failed to mention the date and year of the execution of the said transaction either oral oY written. In defence the defendant has filed two unregistered documents which have allegedly been executed in the years 1969 and 1970, The documents have been written more than 30 years ago if relied on the date inserted in the documents but both the lower Courts have discarded the same documents holding them to be inadmissible for evidence as not to be registered. 2ndly both the lower Courts have declared the documents to be forged for the reasons that the The PW-1 is also tenant of the disputed land. His statement also has been recorded on 24-11- 2007, when he was 60 years old. PW-1 also admits while he was being cross-examined that he pays lagan of the disputed land to the defendant from the date of attending his age of majority and also quotes a historical event admittedly happened in the year 1971 the Kafar Pahad (Mountain went into possession of the India as result of the war between India and Pakistan) The statement of the PW-1 also clears that the defendant receives the rent of the disputed land for more than 30 yeaRs, The statements of the PWs are sufficient to shatter the contention of the respondent/plaintiff that the transaction was for 15 years and he filed the suit just after completion of the 15 years stipulated period. The suit has been filed at least after 26 or 27 years of receiving the lagan of the disputed land by the petitioners and their father as a result of the sale transaction. The suit is mainly for declaration and consequential reliefs asked for are also in nature of declaration and no possession or receiving of lagan has been asked for as such the suit is time-barred under Article 120 Limitation Act.
9. ' In my opinion, lower Courts have erred in law by not considering the documents as the same apparently seem to be acknowledgment receipts which need not to be registered and if considered to be sale-deeds then too, the documents could be admitted for collateral purposes such as i.e. Estoppel and to determine day, year of the sale transaction for calculation of limitation period particularly the statements PWs are in corroboration with the years given in the documents some extent. In holding the view I am' supported by the case law (i) PLD 1976 SC Page 781 (ii). SCMR 1997 Page 837. The logic of the lower Courts declaring the document to be forged, is also not understandable. The respondent has written his full name in the documents like as he has written his full name in the plaint and other documents submitted before the Court idefendant has not signed the documents and no marginal witnesses of the documents except the PW-2 who is one of the tenants appeared before the Court for plaintiff and denied his thumb-impression on any such like document. The PW-2 appeared before the trial Court for recording his statement on 24-11-2007 and his age on the said date has been recorded as 60 years wherein he admits that the present respondent said him to pay the lagan of the disputed land to the father of the petitioners when his own father was alive and he himself was' of 30 years of age. The suit has been filed on 18-6-2004 and as per his statement it proves that the defendant has been receiving the lagan of the disputed land for about 30 yeaRs, he suit.
10. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that the suit is barred by the prohibitory clause of section 42 Specific Reliefs Act and also time-barred, hence both the impugned decrees passed by the lower Courts are set aside and the respondent is de-suited. No order as to cost.