' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this civil revision the petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree dated 19-2-1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan whereby the appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 10-4- 1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Rahimyarkhan dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents was set aside and the suit was decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13-6-1993 the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration praying therein that they are owners in possession of suit land described in the head note of the plaint. They are also owners of the shares mentioned in the Jamanbandi of the ownership of defendants Nos.1 to 3, Allah Wasaya and Sher Muhammad deceased. They also alleged that in the Register Haqdaranzamin the names of defendants have been wrongly mentioned which are liable to be corrected.
3. The defendants appeared in the court and contested the suit. The learned trial court after framing of issues invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced their respective evidence. The learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 10-4- 1996 dismissed the suit. They filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 19-2-1997, hence this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants states that the plaintiffs/respondents have not challenged any mutation nor they have challenged the entries of Jamanbandi. Further one of the plaintiffs in his statement as P. W.1 stated that they came to know about the fact that in the Jamanbandi for the year, 1904, the name of the defendants have been mentioned as owner.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that on this assertion of the plaintiffs, the suit cannot be decreed. Further states that the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs/respondents does not favour them and is not sufficient to prove their case. Further states that they have produced volumness evidence to establish their case. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the defendants have produced Exh.D-6 copy of Mutation No,153 attested on 20-2-1932, it is an inheritance mutation of the suit land, wherein Budhu son of Khanan died and his son Pir Bux was given land in inheritance. Further states that Shamas Din purchased one part of the suit property through registered sale-deed dated 16-5-1985 and on the basis of this sale deed Mutation No,3008 was sanctioned on 15-11-1985 on behalf of Kamal Khatoon in favour of Shamas Din, copy of mutation Exh.D-18. Further this mutation was incorporated in Exh.D-33. The said Kamal Khatoon is grand daughter of Bhudu and daughter of Amir Bux and sister of Khan Muhammad etc. Further states that till the time the plaintiffs have not challenged the registered sale deed, they cannot challenge the revenue record as well as mutation which was sanctioned on the basis of registered sale deed. Further that suit was flied in the year 1993, whereas the petitioners themselves purchased the land from one of the legal heirs of Bhudu in the year 1985, therefore, the suit was clearly time barred.
5. C.M.No, 323 of 2006 has been filed under section 151 and under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. Read with Order XLI, Rule 33, C.P.C. I believe that already record available with the file is sufficient to determine the lis, therefore, there is no need to go into the merit of this petition, therefore, I dispose of the same accordingly.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that Exh.P-2 which is Jamanbandi for the year 1979 which was produced by the plaintiffs themselves. It clearly shows that Khaira was having two sons one was Daya Samara and the other was Dadu. He states that the defendants/petitioners are descendant of said Dadu, whereas the plaintiffs are decendant of Daya Samara. Learned counsel further submits that Exh.D-19 is Mutation No,84 attested on 10-11-1904, whereas it is clearly written on the back of this mutation. This mutation has been implemented in the revenue record on 14-12-1904.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents states that both the parties belong to Daya caste and it has not been denied by other defendants. Further states that against the pleadings no evidence can be produced. Further states that DW.1 has not stated the Shajra Nasib. Now the petitioners want to produce through C.M.No,323 of 2006. Further that defendants/petitioners have claimed adverse possession in their written statement which is contradictory to other claims. Further states that defendants have not proved that how the name of Bhudu came in the Jarnanbandi, Exh.D-4 for the year 1933-34. Further states that pedigree-table produced by the defendants has not proved their case, therefore, the learned first appellate court has rightly granted a decree in favour of the respondents.
8. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
9. The plaintiffs have challenged the entries of revenue record. They have not challenged the specific mutations, registered sale deed or specific entries of the revenue record. They have simply prayed for declaration. Further that they have stated that the ownership mentioned against the names of the defendants in the Jamanbandi are wrong and that property is also in the ownership of the plaintiffs/respondents. After a period of 100 years, the plaintiffs/respondents have challenged the validity of the record of rights and entries therein. It was the case in which the plaintiffs have not proved their case. They cannot take the benefit of weakness of other party. They are bound under the law clearly and specifically to plead and then prove their case with unrebuttal, cogent and reliable evidence which they failed to produce the same. The registered sale deed has not been challenged. The outcome of which are that, mutations those have also not been challenged specifically which were required under the law to be challenged and further no evidence confidence inspiring has been produced by the plaintiffs/respondents, those mutations cannot be disturbed. Therefore, they have miserable failed to prove their case. The case was filed after 100 years of the alleged entries in the revenue record, which was clearly time barred. The first appellate court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested to it under the law.
10. The claim of:adverse possession of the defendants/petitioners is not fatal enough to them to decree the suit on the basis of this claim. Even otherwise, when an oral assertion against the right has been made that is not even binding upon a party who makes that assertion. It is well settled law that even an admission against the record is also not binding on the parties admitting the facts against the record. The objection of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents that defendants have not proved that how the name of Bhudu came in the Jamanbandi as an owner. It was not duty of the defendants to show after 100 years that how the names of their predecessors came in the Jamanbandi. The plaintiffs /respondents under the law were bound to prove that the name of Bhudhu has been wrongly entered in the Jamanbandi for which they have failed to prove.
The findings of first appellate court are result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence available on the record, whereas the findings recorded by the learned trial court are well reasoned and sustainable under the law.
' In the light of what has been discussed above, I allow this civil revision, set aside the judgment and decree dated 19-2-1997 and dismiss the suit with costs throughout.