' WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.---Impugned herein is the judgment and decree dated 21-7-2010 of learned Additional District Judge-I, Takht Bhai whereby the appeal of respondents was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 3-4-2010 passed by learned Civil Judge-I, Takht Bhai was set aside.
2. Facts of the case are that petitioners filed a suit for decree of declaration, possession and injunction in respect of land measuring 18 kanals 19-1/2 marlas, fully detailed in the heading of the plaint, thereby challenging the validity of two mutations i.e, gift Mutation No,3953 attested on 17-1- 1970 and sale Mutation No,4279 attested on 13-12-1974 in favour of respondents on the ground that the same are the result of fraud as no gift or sale of the suit property was made by Shad Khan father of plaintiff No,1 and brother of Sharifullah Khan predecessor-ininterest of plaintiffs 2 to 15 in favour of defendants 1 to 3.
' Respondents were put on notice who contested the suit by filing their written statement. Issues were framed and pro and contra evidence was recorded. On conclusion, the suit was decreed and on appeal the same was set aside and the matter was remitted to the learned trial court with certain directions, which were complied with, whereafter the suit was again decreed vide judgment and decree dated 3-4-2010 of learned trial court. Appeal filed thereagainst was accepted through the impugned judgment and decree dated 21-7-2010 by learned appellate court, hence necessitated the filing of revision petition in hand.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the impugned judgment and decree dated 21-7- 2010 of learned appellate court is not in conformity with Order XLI Rule 31, C.P.C.; that the view taken by learned appellate court that the suit of petitioners is time barred referring to various provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case; that the learned appellate court fell in error by non-suiting the petitioners on the ground of limitation and estoppel, which cannot prevail in the matters of inheritance; that the respondents have not proved the suit, mutations by convincing and reliable evidence but the learned appellate court without application of judicial mind allowed the appeal through the impugned judgment and decree, which is not sustainable in law.
4. As against that learned counsel for respondents contended that the learned appellate court through a very elaborate and detailed judgment on all aspects of the matter has appreciated the entire evidence its true perspective, which is in accordance with law and requires no interference.
5. It transpires that question of limitation and the validity of two mutations, gift Mutation No,3953 attested on 17-1-1970 and sale Mutation No,4279 attested on 13-12-1974 is involved in the instant case. The stance of petitioners is that they got knowledge of the said two mutations in the year, 2005 when inheritance mutation regarding legacy of deceased Shad Khan was attested but APW.3 special attorney of petitioner No,1 while deposing before the court stated that respondents are in possession of the property in dispute since attestation of both the mutations and Revenue Record also supports the version of the said witness. It is also noticed that Sharif Khan predecessor-in- interest of petitioners 2 to 15 also made gift in favour of his sons out of the same joint property through Mutation No,4776 attested in the year, 1980, therefore, the date of knowledge of the two mutations to petitioners 2 to 15 would be taken as date of attestation of Mutation No,4776 in the year, 1980 and this suit filed in the year, 2005 was rightly held to be barred by time. It also merits mention here that the entire property of predecessor of petitioner No,1 was exhausted in the year, 1944 through Mutation No,1951 and then through Mutations Nos.3953 and 4279 and there was nothing left for the legal heirs to inherit but his inheritance mutation was attested in the year, 2005 probably for the reason to get protection for this suit under the law of limitatioh. This contention of the petitioners was also dealt with in a cogent and plausible manner.
6. Now coming to the question of validity of two mutations i.e, gift Mutation No,3953 and sale Mutation No,4279. No doubt some times burden is placed upon the beneficiary to prove a document or transaction in his favour but the same relates to oral transactions or the transactions effected through registered or unregistered documents. In the case in hand presumption of genuineness is attached to the two mutations on the ground that these are public documents attested in accordance with law and that the same being thirty years old documents also having protection under Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The burden shifted to the petitioners to rebut the contention of respondents by proving the two mutations not to be genuine documents, which was not discharged through convincing, reliable and cogent evidence. The learned appellate court while discussing the issues in question referred to relevant evidence and ultimately was answered in a reasonable manner, which finding is neither perverse nor arbitrary.
7. The learned appellate court has appraised the entire evidence in its true perspective. No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect has been pointed out by learned counsel for petitioners in the impugned judgment. No misreading or non-reading of evidence is shown to have been committed by learned appellate court, which could warrant indulgence by this court in its revisional jurisdiction.
' As a corollary to the above, this petition fails, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.