' IJAZ-UL AHSAN, J.--- This petition arises out of a judgment and decree passed by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, on 17-9-2001. Through the impugned judgment the appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 26-10-2000 passed by learned Civil Judge at Gujranwala was allowed and suit of the respondents which had earlier been dismissed was decreed in their favour. Since the judgments and decrees of the learned subordinate courts were at variance, this petition was admitted to regular hearing.
2. The brief facts of the case are that during consolidation proceedings in the year 1957, four kanals of land out of five kanals comprising in Khasra No,1910 situated in Mouza Jandiala Baghanwala, Tehsil and District Gujranwala was given to the respondents; whereas the remaining one kanal of land was transferred to the petitioner. The respondents filed a suit on 11-5-1995 before the civil courts at Gujranwala seeking declaration and permanent injunction. It was alleged in the plaint that the petitioner in collusion with revenue officials and Halqa Patwari got transferred land measuring three kanals in his favour and only two kanals were transferred to the respondents. It was stated that the respondents were in physical cultivating possession of the land measuring four kanals and Mutation No,2464 showing that the respondents were in possession only to the extent of two kanals was illegal, void and ineffective upon the rights of the respondents.
3. The petitioner controverted the facts alleged, in the plaint and raised various factual and legal objections. It was stated in the written statement that the suit filed by the respondents was hopelessly barred by time as the impugned order dated 6-7-1978 had been passed more than 17 years ago. As such the plaint was liable to be rejected.
4. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as six issues.
Issues Nos.1 and 3 related to the question of limitation and were framed in the following terms:---
(1) Whether the suit is within time? OPP
(2) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD ' The parties were called upon to adduce their respective evidence. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned trial court was pleased to find that the suit was hopelessly barred by time and proceeded to dismiss the same. Aggrieved of the order of the learned Civil Judge, the respondents filed an appeal which was heard by a learned Additional District Judge. Vide order dated 17-9-2001, the appellate court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 26-10-2000 and decreed the suit of the respondents. The said judgment and decree is assailed through this petition.
5. At the very outset the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he will confine his arguments to the question of limitation only. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entries in the Revenue Record which were challenged by the respondents were not duly exhibited in their evidence. He, however, submits that the same are available on the record. The learned counsel submits that the relevant document, which is available on the record and can be taken judicial notice of, was prepared on 6-7-1978 and bears the signatures of both parties. He therefore submits that the document clearly indicates that the respondents were aware of the entries in the Revenue Records indicating that three kanals of land stood in the name of the petitioner while two kanals stood in the name of the respondents. He further submits that the respondents moved an application before the Collector, Gujranwala Division for correction of entries in the records in October, 1994. The collector Gujranwala Division after hearing the parties, dismissed the application on the ground that it was barred by time vide order dated 11-6-2005. It is, therefore, argued that the respondents knew about the entries in the. Revenue Records since 6-7-1978. However, they filed the suit in 1995 i,e, 17 years later which was clearly barred by time. The learned first appellate court, therefore, erred in law and misread the evidence in decreeing the suit in favour of the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the respondents have been in possession of the suit property since 1957. He has drawn my attention to the resolution relating to consolidation proceedings showing that the respondents were given four kanals while the petitioner was given one kanal of land.. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to khasra girdawri for the land in question which was prepared in 1966-67 in which the respondents are shown to be in possession of four kanals of land. He further submits that the petitioner gave an evasive response in his written statement relating to his possession and never produced any document in court in support of his claim that he was entitled to three kanals of land.
7. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Rehman v. Yara through L.Rs, and others (2004 SCM R 1502). He therefore submits that a person in possession of land is not obliged, to rush to the court only on the basis of adverse entry in the Revenue Record. In such a case the plaintiff would get recurring cause of action on each adverse entry being made in the Revenue Record and the plaintiff would be the sole judge of any serious threat to his interest. Instead, according to him, an entry in the Revenue Record was neither a document of title nor presumptive evidence of title.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. I have also perused the record with their assistance. The record indicates that the respondent was allowed four kanals of land in Khasra No,1910 during consolidation proceedings through Resolution No,34 in 1957. However, after completion of consolidation proceedings, the revenue officials appear to have committed an error while incorporating the entries in the Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1961-62. They entered three kanals of land instead of four kanals in the ownership column of the respondents and wrongly entered two canals in the ownership of the petitioner. According to the petitioner he came to know about the said fact in the year 1995. He immediately moved an application for correction of entries in the Revenue Record but the same was refused by the District Collector Gujranwala. The respondent therefore filed a suit for declaration before the civil court on 11-6-1995. It is not clear from the record or evidence of the parties that the respondents were aware of the wrong entries in the Revenue Records before 1995. The document relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has neither been exhibited nor has the question of the respondents having signed the same in 1978 been decided on the touchstone of cross-examination. Further, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty whether or not the predecessor-in-interest of the A respondents actually signed the document. Even otherwise, there is sufficient material on record to indicate that the respondents have all along been in possession of four kanals of land and continue to be in possession thereof which fact is not denied by the learned counsel for the respondent.. The learned appellate court was, therefore, justified in holding that the suit filed by the respondents was not barred by time. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion. I am fortified by the Judgment in Rehman v.
Yara through legal heirs (2004 SCM R 1502) wherein, it has been held that where there is sufficient evidence to show possession, the suit would be covered by Article 120 of the Limitation Act and the person in possession of the land would not be obliged to rush to the court only on the basis of adverse entry in the Revenue Record and in such a case, plaintiff would get recurring cause of action by each adverse entry in the Revenue Record and the plaintiff would be sole judge of serious threats to his interest.
9. It is significant to note. That it is settled law that an entry in the Revenue Record is neither a document of title nor presumptive evidence of title and a person may not feel aggrieved of such entry and cause of action in such case would not accrue without there being in the field an order, original, appellate or revisional. The cause of action would accrue when a person concerned feels himself aggrieved of the situation when he would feel necessary to approach a court of law for relief which he considers fit and proper in accordance with law to better safeguard his interest.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not urge any other ground in support of this petition.
11. In view of my aforesaid findings that the suit of the petitioner was not barred by time and for the reasons recorded above, I hold that the learned first appellate court did not act illegally or with material irregularity. Further, there was neither misreading nor non-reading of evidence. I find that the learned first appellate court applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, sifted and appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and applied the correct principles of law on the subject. While upholding the order of the first appellate court, I find no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.