' KHALID MAHMOOD, J.---This revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3-6-2008, whereby learned Additional District Judge-V, Abbottabad accepted the appeal of respondents Nos.1 to 9 and set aside judgment and decree of Civil Judge- VIII, Abbottabad dated 28-9-2004.
2. Petitioner filed a suit for declaration, possession as well as permanent injunction regarding the property fully described in the heading of plaint against respondents, which after contest was decreed vide judgment dated 28-9-2004 by learned Civil Judge-VIII, Abbottabad. Feeling aggrieved, respondents preferred appeal and learned Additional District Judge-V. Abbottabad after hearing learned counsel for the parties, accepted the appeal and set aside judgment and decree of trial court vide judgment dated 3-6-2008. Petitioner, feeling aggrieved from the above said judgment and decree, filed instant revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner mainly argued that findings of learned appellate court are against facts and are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. It was argued that learned appellate court failed to appreciate that Taj Muhammad predecessor of respondents Nos.1 to 9 had camouflage the whole story for sufficient long time and real picture appeared on the screen after his death. It was also argued that petitioner being a parda nashin illiterate lady was neither present at the time of declaration of alleged gift nor attestation of mutation or was made to join transaction. It was concluded that learned appellate court has acted in haste and wrongly and illegally passed impugned judgment and decree, which is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 9 refuted. The contentions of petitioner and supported the impugned judgment and decree of appellate Court.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Admittedly, the suit land was transferred in the name of Taj Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 9, on the basis of gift Mutation No,171 attested on 28-3-1954 and thereafter he remained in its possession till his death. Afterwards his successors-ininterest are shown in possession of the suit property. Besides the petitioner, her sister namely Mst. Anwar Jan also gifted out her share in favour of said Taj Muhammad. The mutation was attested in 1954, which was prior to coming into force of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1.967 and at that time no procedure was prescribed wherein it was laid down that at the time of execution of mutation obtaining of signatures/thumb impressions of executant and marginal witnesses were not necessary. However, after promulgation of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 the mutation was sought to be attested by the Tehsildar/Revenue Officer in presence of two respectable of Illaqa, preferably Lambardar or member of Union Council. Section 42(7) of the said Act is reproduced as under:-- "Except in cases of inheritance or where the acquisition of the right is by a registered deed or by or under an order or decree of a Court, the Revenue Officer shall make the order under subsection
(6) in the presence of the person, whose right has been acquired, after such person has been identified by two respectable persons preferably from Lambardars of members of the ("Zile Council, Tehsil Council or Town Council') or Union Council concerned, whose signatures or thumb impressions shall be obtained by the Revenue Officer, On the register of mutations".
7. The provision regarding obtaining of signatures/thumb impressions of vendor/executant on mutation become mandatory after issuance of notification somewhere in the year 1980. The legal heirs of her sister also admitted the factum of gift and attestation of mutation in favour of Taj Muhammad.
The impugned gift mutation was attested in the year 1954 whereas petitioner has filed the instant suit for declaration on 2-6-1996, i.e, after lapse of more then four decades of attestation of mutation and much after the sad demise of Taj Muhammad. It appears that petitioner after attestation of gift mutation went into slumber and awoke at a very belated stage and challenged its genuineness without associating her other sister Mst. Anwar Jan 'as plaintiff. The admission of legal heirs of Mst. Anwar Jan regarding genuineness of impugned mutation has rightly been appreciated by the learned appellate Court as admission of co-defendant/co-heir is best corroboratory evidence in favour of respondents/defendants. In this respect reliance is placed on "Adalat Khan v. Mst. Begum Bibi through legal heirs and another" reported as 1991 SCMR 1381, wherein it was held as under:- - "The admission of Qazi respondent can be examined in two different contexts. One, that in so far as his own share in the inheritance is concerned he could not prevent sharing it with the appellant; and second, that as a witness he has deposed in favour of the appellant stating that he is son of Mst. Dani. This goes not only against his own interest but also against the interest of his real sister Mst. Begum Bibi. There is no reason to disbelieve him. Rather it is a strong piece of evidence in favour of Adalat Khan".
8. In another case of similar nature titled "Abdul Jabbar and others v. Muhammad Jabbar and others" reported as 2002 SCMR 1173, wherein it was held:-- "Statement of first wife of deceased had been rightly treated to be true on the principle that no one would make any admission against his own interest unless the same was true".
9. It is admitted fact that from the very day of attestation of suit mutation Taj Muhammad (late) being sole owner in possession of the suit property is enjoying the usufruct of the said property. The mutation has been duly incorporated in the register of owner, hence, presumption of truth was attached to the long standing entries. In this regard reliance can be placed on "Muhammad Amir and others v. Mst. Beevi and others" reported as 2007 SCMR 614, wherein gift mutation was challenged after 24 years of its attestation, it was held as under:-- "10. The learned first appellate Court and the learned High Court ignored from consideration that mutation entries when incorporated in the record of rights carry presumption of truth The following observations of this Court in Abdul Ahad and others v. Roshan Din and 36 others PLD 1979 SC 890, illustrate the principle.
"When a mutation gets incorporated in Jamabandi (i.e, annual record) then as held in Bhagwan Das v. Mangal Said (1), Jamabandi carries a presumption of truth and the learned District Judge in the circumstances was not justified to ignore the said Jamabandi and its corresponding supporting mutation."
10. The mutation was attested in 1954 whereas suit has been brought in the year 1996 i.e, after lapse of 42 years. Suit mutation being old more than thirty years, hence, under Article 100 of the Qanun- eShahadat presumption of truth is attached to the said mutation. In this respect reliance can be placed on "Faqir Muhammad and others v. Fida Muhammad and others reported as 2004 CLC page 162. In the said case mutation was attested in 1946 whereas suit was brought in 1989.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned appellate court has rightly appraised the evidence on record and on acceptance of appeal dismissed the suit of plaintiff. Learned counsel for petitioner failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence or illegality committed by the learned appellate court while passing the impugned judgment and decree.
12. Consequently, this revision petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.