AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this appeal, appellant-plaintiff has challenged the judgment ,& decree dated 27.03.1999 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Kasur, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents was accepted, in result of which the judgment & decree dated 17.07.1995 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Kasur, decreeing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff, were set aside.
2. Briefly, the facts as leading to this appeal are that the appellant -plaintiff filed a suit for declaration on 15.02.1993 alleging therein that he be declared owner in possession of suit land. The plaintiff stated that he purchased the suit, land through registered sale-deed No. 2023 written on 11.04.1981; which was subsequently registered on 11.05.1981 and on the basis of this sale-deed mutation No. 2182 was attested on 01.07.1981. Afterwards the Consolidation Officer cancelled the mutation on the basis that the vendor has not sold the whole of land in his ownership and 02- kanals of land remained in his ownership after selling land to the plaintiff, therefore he violated the provision of Section 24 of. The Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 (M.L.R.115) as he was bound to sell his whole of his land which was lesser than subsistence holdings. The defendant No. 2, Muhammad Sarwar purchased said land after cancellation from the name of plaintiff-appellant from the original owner, Muhammad Sharif through registered sale-deed dated 05.01.1983 on the basis of which mutation No. 2212 was sanctioned on 26.04.1983.
3. The written statement was filed by defendant No. 2, who is the subsequent purchaser of suit land after its cancellation from the name of appellant-plaintiff through sale-deed dated 05.01.1983 and mutation was also attested in his favour. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed issues and invited the parties to adduce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their versions. After the close of trial, vide judgment and decree dated 17.07.1995 suit was decreed. The defendant No. 2 filed an appeal before the first Appellate Court, which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 27.03.1999, whereby the judgment & decree passed by learned Trial Court were set aside. Hence, this regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff states that the appellant is in possession of suit land and when the registered sale-deed is intact, the revenue officer was not within his competence to review the mutation; that the mutation has been reviewed by the Consolidation Officer which was absolutely without jurisdiction and if there was any jurisdiction, that was with the Deputy Land Commissioner under the Martial Law Regulation but the review of mutation by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of vires of any provision of Martial Law Regulation is without jurisdiction.
Learned counsel has further argued that the order passed by learned Civil Judge while decreeing the suit is well-reasoned and is in accordance with law. While referring Ex.P-3 which is registered, sale-deed in favour of plaintiff, learned counsel has stated that in clear words the seller i.e. Muhammad Sharif has stated, as is written at last page of sale-deed that the seller is transferring whole of his owned land in the Mouza and if any part of his owned land is not mentioned in this sale-deed, the same shall be presumed to have been sold and the Revenue Officer will be at liberty to pass mutation of that portion of land also and he will not raise any objection, therefore if any part of property left outside the sale-deed, that also was transferred in favour of plaintiff-appellant and the Revenue Officer was bound to incorporate in the mutation that portion also. Further states that the possession of land is with the appellant-plaintiff and as such limitation cannot be a hurdle in the way of appellant; that the appellant is a simple villager, therefore the Court has to safeguard his rights and that the applications filed by the respondent-defendant for permission to produce additional evidence as well as for permission to implead some unnecessary persons as party are also not sustainable under the law.
5.. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, Muhammad Sarwar has pressed the applications filed by him. C.M.No. 1-C of 2012 is an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC for permission to produce Register Scheme of consolidation as well as the revenue record of Khasra-Girdawari. C.M. No. 2-C of 2012 is an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC to implead Muhammad Anwar and Mst. Halima Bibi etc. As respondents. C.M. No. 3-C of 2012 is an application for permission to amend written statement pleading therein the plea of bona fide purchaser. Learned counsel with regard to the merits of case argued that the suit was clearly time- barred, as the appellant-plaintiff remained silent for a period of 11 years; that the plaintiff appeared as his own witness and no other oral evidence was produced by him; that the respondent, Muhammad Sarwar has purchased the suit property and imitation has also been attested in his favour. Lastly prayed that the case be remanded to the learned Trial Court after allowing all the three applications.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and also gone through the record with their able assistance.
7. When the transfer of property is made through a registered document, there are some presumptions attached to a registered document under Article 85(5) of Qanun-e-Shahadat order, 1984 and the mutation on the basis of said document under the law will remain intact till the time said registered document is in existence. The mutation attested on the basis of a registered document cannot be subsequently cancelled. I have observed that in the sale-deed in favour of plaintiff-appellant, the vendor of land has clearly stated that he is selling out the whole of his land in the Mouza and if inadvertently any land remains out of the sale-deed, the Revenue Officer will be at liberty to sanction the mutation of sale of that land also and he will not raise objection in this regard. In this eventuality, the Revenue Officer was bound under the law to attest the mutation of whole of land owned by the plaintiff-appellant in that Mouza and even if the mutation was not attested for whole of the land of seller in the name of vendee i.e. Plaintiff-appellant, then the Consolidation Officer who has reviewed the mutation has absolutely no authority to review the mutation, sanctioned by the Revenue Officer on the basis of a registered document. The authority to check the violation of Martial Law Regulation was with the Land Reforms Authorities. Even land reforms authorities were having a limited authority and cannot set aside the registered document.
The provision promulgated through Para 24 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.LR.115) has been declared against the injunctions of Islam by the Federation Shariat Court in a judgment reported as "PLD 1989 Federal Shariat Court 80 (Sajwara and others v. Federal Govt. Of Pakistan)".
8. Further, it is fundamental principle of law that one cannot take benefit of his own wrong. In this case, if the case pleaded by the defendant admitted to be true, then it will be due to the wrong done by the seller i.e. Muhammad Sharif and without any fault on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, Faizullah. Muhammad Sharif again sold the property through the impugned sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 2, Muhammad Sarwar. Meaning thereby he has sold out his property twice and even no fault has been alleged on the part of first purchaser, therefore law cannot allow the wrong doer to take the benefit of his own wrong.
9. The other point in involved in this appeal is of limitation. When the action for review of mutation is absolutely without jurisdiction and the appellant-plaintiff is in possession of suit land and further when it is not established on the record that plaintiff was ever given notice before review of mutation, therefore limitation cannot be a hurdle against his rights.
10. So far as the application for production of additional evidence is concerned. It is now settled law that the Court can allow the additional evidence if the Court itself requires further evidence in order to reach to a right conclusion. In this case, the evidence available on the file is sufficient and even I have perused the documents sought to be produced by the respondent/defendant as an additional evidence have no support for the case of respondent/defendant, As such the application is not maintainable.
11. So far as the application moved by respondent No, 1 under Order I, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. For impleading some persons as defendants, is concerned. I am clear in my mind that a defendant cannot move application under Order I, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. With the prayer that some other person impleaded as defendant in the suit and that too at the, stage of second appeal, Therefore, this application is also not maintainable and the same is dismissed.
12. So far as the application for amendment of written statement is concerned. After a period of about 18/19 years the defendant/respondent has prayed for permission to amend the written statement mentioning bona fide purchaser. I am afraid that at the stage of second appeal, the defendant cannot raise this plea. If his prayer is allowed, it will change the complexion of written statement. Thus, this application is also not maintainable. Even otherwise, learned first Appellate Court has accepted the appeal on the basis that the defendant is a bona fide purchaser even without his plea or without any issue. In this case, the plea of bona fide purchaser is absolutely not helpful to the respondent. If any fraud was committed by the seller, Muhammad Sharif with the respondent, he can sue him in accordance with law for redressal of his grievance and he cannot defend the suit on the basis of this plea of bona fide purchaser in the circumstances of case when no fault is on the part of appellant-plaintiff. From the date of purchase of suit property plaintiff- appellant is owner of the suit property, therefore no question of bona fide purchaser can be pressed against the plaintiff-appellant.
13. In the light of what has been discussed above, the instant regular second appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment & decree dated 27.03.1999 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Kasur,