' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 21-5-1998 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar whereby the appeal filed by the respondents was accepted and judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court dated 19-4-1995 dismissing the suit was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration that they are legal heirs of Jan Muhammad deceased and entitled to legal share in ""Ahata" No.369 measuring 5 marlas, fully described in the head note of the plaint. The suit was resisted by the defendant.
Written statement was filed.
3. Learned trial Court framed the issues and invited the parties to produce their oral as well as documentary evidence. Both the parties produced their respective evidence. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19-4-1995 dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs-respondents filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar vide judgment and decree dated 21-5-1998. Hence this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Muhammad Sultan, petitioner has purchased the suit property through registered deed from the ostensible owner Mst.Karamtay Bibi. Further states that the respondents plaintiffs challenged Mutation No.23 attested on 5-8-1984 in favour of Mst.Karamtay Bibi alleging it to be an inheritance mutation from Jan,Muhammad.
5. On the other. Hand, learned counsel for the respondents states that Exh.P-7 is an application filed by Mst. Karamtay Bibi for attestation of mutation in her favour as she was widow of Jan Muhammad. Further states that judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is in accordance with law.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. It is a matter of concern that both the learned counsel have not properly assisted the Court. They advanced just flimsy arguments but the record was minutely scrutinized by me. Exh.P-1 which is being alleged as inheritance mutation is not so. This mutation is about conferment of proprietary rights on the basis of registered transfer deed by Municipal Committee, Haroonabad in favour of Mst. Karamtay Bibi. This mutation was sanctioned on 5-8-1984 on the basis it registered document dated 18-7-1984 Through this document the rights of "Ahata" in dispute were conferred to Mst.
Karamtay Bibi and not to Jan Muhammad, her husband. It is not denied that Jan Muhammad died on 27-5-1975. The death certificate was produced by the plaintiffs-respondents as Exh.P-5, meaning thereby the proprietary rights were granted to Mst. Karamtay Bibi even after nine years of the death of Jan Muhammad. Mst. Karamtay Bibi sold this "Ahata" in favour of Muhammad Sultan through registered sale-deed, copy of which is Exh.P-4 and mutation on the basis of which sale- deed was sanctioned is Exh.P-3 on the record. In this view of the matter I am clear in my mind that proprietary rights were transferred in favour of Mst. Karamtay Bibi and the registered deed through which proprietary rights were granted to her has not been challenged in this suit. When the document, on the basis of which Mutation No.23 has been sanctioned, has not been challenged, the mutation also cannot be challenged. Furthermore, this is not an inheritance mutation of Jan Muhammad deceased. The suit is misconceived. So, is the evidence led by the plaintiffs- respondents.
8: For the sake of arguments, if any initial allotment was made in the name of Jan Muhammad, that remained just an allotment till he breathed his last and Mst. Karamtay Bibi, his widow fulfilled all the conditions and then proprietary rights were conferred upon her. The plaintiffs were bound under the law to prove that the rights conferred to Jah Muhammad for allotment of "Ahata" were inheritable rights and under the inheritance they were entitled to get their share. I have also noticed that this aspect of the case has not been pleaded. Therefore, no question of evidence on this point arises. In this view of the matter the learned first appellate Court fell in error while deciding the appeal in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents, which ' is result of misreading and non- reading of evidence brought by the parties on the record of file of this case.
9. For what has been discussed above, while accepting this civil revision, I set aside the judgment and decree dated 21-5-1998 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar and dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents with costs.