' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this civil revision, petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree dated 25-3-2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, whereby he while accepting the appeal respondents-plaintiffs appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 19- 9-2001 passed by Civil Judge 1st Class, Bahawalpur, and decreed their suit.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession in accordance with their respective shares in the suit property and defendants have no concern with the suit property. The sale-deeds Nos.3223 and 3224 dated 7-11- 1993 by defendant No,2 in favour of defendants Nos.3 and 4 and sale-deeds dated 20-11-1993 by defendant No,1 in favour of defendants Nos.3, 5 and 6 are illegal and against law. Further that inheritance Mutations Nos.974 and 975, dated 18-8-1993 of Mouza Bahawalpur, are also wrong and based on fraud and misrepresentation.
3. The basic construction of the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents was that Mutations Nos.974 and 975 were fictitiously entered because Mst. Ghulam Zainub and Mst. Sardaran Bibi were not owners of the land, for which, these mutations of inheritance were sanctioned, therefore, Ahmad Shah son of Mst. Ghulam Zainub was not entitled to receive anything through Mutation No,974 sanctioned on 18-8-1993 because Mst. Ghulam Zainub was already landless. Further Mst. Badlan Bibi and Mst.
Jannun Bibi were also not entitled to receive anything but wrongly sanctioned Mutation No,975 for inheritance of Mst. Sardaran Bibi on 24-8-1993 which are Exh.P-28 and Exh.P-29 respectively.
4. Both the parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned trial court framed the issues, recorded the evidence and after hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that plaintiffs failed to prove their case and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 19-9-2001. The plaintiffs-respondents filed an appeal before the learned lower appellate Court. The learned lower appellate Court minutely discussed the oral as well as- documentary evidence. In presence of documentary evidence, oral evidence has little value. The documentary evidence available as Exh.P-1 to Exh.P-3 and Exh.P-22 to Exh.P-33 proved the case pleaded by the plaintiffs. Shares of the ownership of the plaintiffs is admitted one. The defendants Nos.2, 3, 6 and 7 have not objected to the decree of the suit. The only contestants are Ahmad Shah and Mst. Badlan Bibi who are the transferor and Rahem Shah and Ishaque Shah are the transferees. They have contested the suit. They have not contested the share of the plaintiffs in the suit property but their contest is to the extent of their own share which they claim through the registered sale deeds, which are based on the inheritance Mutations Nos. 974 and 975 supra.
' According to the Jamabandi for the year 1973-1974, copy of which is placed on record as Exh.P:31, the total shares of joint khata were 7232, out of which, Mst. Sardaran Bibi, widow of Abdul Qadir Shah, is owner to the extent of 165 shares, Mst. Ghulam Sakina Bibi and Mst. Shammo Bibi were owners to the extent of 4792 shares, Mst. Badlan Bibi and Mst. Jannun Bibi were owners to the extent of 440 shares while Mst. 'Ghulam Zainub and Mst. Gammu Bibi, widows of Muhammad Shah were entitled to 11 shares. Syed Ahmad Shah, Shams-ud-Din Shah, Zulfiqar Shah and Zaman Shah were owners of 56 shares, Mst. Manzoor Bibi, Mst. Faizu Bibi and Mst. Kaniz Bibi daughters of Muhammad Shah were owners of 21 shares in 1635 shares. Mst. Ghulam Zainub daughter of Mst. Karam Illahi was owner of 200 shares. The total land of the khata was 27-kanals 4-maria.. In this view of the matter, Mst. Badlan Bibi and Mst. Jannun Bibi were owner of 22-marla property, out of total joint Khata. Raheem Shah was never co-sharer in this khata according to this document. Syed Ahmad Shah was only owner of 40-marlas. There is a graveyard over 4-kanals and 15-marlas of land in this Khata, meaning thereby the ownership of the shareholders excluding the graveyard comes to 22-kanals and 9-marlas. This property is distributable among the co-sharers and every co-sharer was liable to deduction respectively for graveyard. The sale deeds Exh.P-4 to Exh.P-12 in shape of certified copies are available on record. The original defendants/owners have sold out their total land in accordance with their full "haqiat" without excluding the share for graveyard uptil 1980. In this way, said co-sharer Syed Ahmad Shah and Mst. Badlan Bibi along with her sister Mst. Jannun Bibi became landless. So they were not competent to sell the property in excess to their share vide disputed registered deeds, which are placed on record as Exh.P-16 to Exh. P-20.
5. Other question comes that what is the legality of impugned Mutations Nos. 974 and 975, placed on record as Exh.P-28 and Exh.P-29. These mutations have been cancelled through lard badar' No,9 and lard badar' No,10 sanctioned on 21-9-1999. Through these lard badars', Mutations Nos.974 and 975 have been declared against the record and correction of record has been sanctioned. On this point, learned, counsel for the petitioners states that in accordance with Para No,7.44-F of the Land Record Manual, this was not in the jurisdiction of the revenue officers to ignore any mutation or set aside any mutation in the garb of correction of record or through lard badar'. There is no cavil to this rule that while exercising powers under Para 7.44-F of the Land Record Manual, any revenue official can exercise powers mentioned in this Para and no other power. The mutation cannot be set aside or ignored under .The garb of lard badar' but as I have noticed that the matter noted and report made by the revenue officials in this 'fard badar' has been substantiated by the plaintiffs through their other documentary evidence in shape of mutations and register haqdaran zameen, which have not been rebutted by the defendants-petitioners.
' Only on the basis of these 'fard badars', the impugned mutations cannot be declared against law but I have observed that plaintiffs have fully proved that these Mutations Nos.974 and 975 were got sanctioned malafidely against the record, therefore, the learned first appellate Court rightly declared these mutations as void and ineffective.
6. The last point urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were bona fide purchasers. Against this contention, besides the oral evidence, learned counsel for the plaintiffs- respondents has referred Exh.P-3 which is rent deed, wherein said Rahem Shah was a tenant over the plot in dispute under Mst. Ghulam Sakina Bibi, therefore, this claim of the petitioners to be of bona fide purchaser is also not proved.
7. In this view of the matter, I see no illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional defect, even no mis- reading or non-reading on the part of learned 1st appellate Court, therefore, this civil revision having no merit is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.