' KHALID MAHMOOD J.--- This revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. 'is directed against the consolidated judgment and decree dated 27-10-2005, whereby learned Additional District Judge- III, Haripur, on acceptance of appeal of the respondents, set aside the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Haripur dated 23-2-2004 and dismissed the suit of plaintiffs/petitioners.
2. Petitioners filed a suit for declaration-cum-injunction and in alternate for possession regarding the suit property, fully described in the heading of plaint, against the respondents. Respondents appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. Learned trial Court after recording evidence and hearing the parties decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, respondents preferred appeal and learned appellate Court on acceptance of appeal set aside the judgment and decree of trial Court and dismissed the suit. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that petitioners are owners in the suit property and they neither received the sale consideration nor appeared before the Revenue Officer and mutation in question attested in absence of petitioners has got no value in the eyes of law and, as such, the judgment and decree of appellate Court is against law, facts and evidence on record, hence, liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposed the contentions of petitioners and supported the impugned judgment and decree of appellate Court.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. It is an admitted fact that the suit Mutation No,4765 was attested on 30-3-1967 in favour of the respondents. The main contention of petitioners is that the mutation was attested at their back, which is based on collusion and fraud. The mutation was executed about 28 years before the institution of the present suit. There is nothing on record as to whether any mesne profits were also enjoyed by the petitioners during this long period or petitioners had proved that they are in possession of the suit property whereas from the Revenue Record as well as the evidence produced before the trial Court it is proved that the suit property from the very date of attestation of the suit mutation is in possession of the respondents. These long-standing entries coupled with peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the respondents and the long silence of the petitioners suffice it to say that the suit mutation was correctly attested in favour of the respondents.
7. The main contention of the petitioners was that the mutation was attested in violation of section 42(7) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue, 1967 and mutation was attested at the back of petitioners. Prior to the promulgation of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act of 1967, the mutations were attested on the basis of Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887). Section 42(6) & (7) of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act deals with the attestation of which, which reads as under:- "6-A Revenue Officer shall, from time to time, inquire into the correctness of all entries in the register of mutations and into all such acquisitions as aforesaid coming to his knowledge of which, under the foregoing subsections, report should have been made to the Patwari and entries made in that register, and shall in each case make such order as he thinks fit with respect to any entry in the periodical record of the right acquired.
(7) Except in cases of inheritance or where the acquisition of the right is by a registered deed or by or under an order or decree of a Court, the Revenue Officer shall make the order under subsection
(6) in the presence of the person whose right has been acquired, after such person has been identified by two respectable persons, preferably from Lambardars or members of the Union Committee, Town Committee or Union Council concerned, whose signatures or thumb- impressions shall be obtained by the Revenue Officer on the register of mutations".
8. Whereas in the repealed Punjab Land Revenue Act of 1887,. Section 34 had laid down the procedure for the attestation of mutation, which is reproduced as under:--- "34. Making of that part of the annual record which relates to land owners, assignees of revenue and occupancy tenants.--- (1) Any person acquiring, by inheritance, purchase, mortgage, gift or otherwise, any right in an estate as a landowner, assignee of land revenue or tenant having a right of occupancy, shall report his acquisition of the right to the Patwari of the estate.
(2) If the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other person having charge of his property shall make the report to the Patwari.
(3) The Patwari shall enter in his register of mutations every report made to him under subsection
(1) or subsection (2), and shall also make an entry therein respecting the acquisition of any such right as aforesaid which he has reason to believe to have taken place, and of which a report should have been made to him under one or other of those subsections and has not been so made.
(4) a Revenue Officer shall, from time to time, inquire into the correctness of all entries in the register of mutations and into all such acquisitions as aforesaid coming to his knowledge of which, under the foregoing subsections, report should have been made to the Patwari and entry made in that register and shall in each case make such order as he thinks fit with respect to the entry in the annual record of the right acquired.
(5) Such an entry shall be made by the insertion in that record of a description of the right acquired and by the omission from that record of any entry in any record previously prepared which by reason of the acquisition has ceased to be correct."
9. West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 was notified vide Notification No,599/67/319-u(1) dated 28th December, 1967 and was enforced w,e,f, 1st January, 1908. Till 31st December, 1967 old Punjab Revenue Act of 1887 was enforced. Suit mutation has been effected on 30-3-1967 i,e, much more prior to the promulgation of present Land Revenue Act. This matter has been dealt with by the apex Court in case of Hakim Khan v. Nazeer Ahmad Lughmani and 10 others reported as 1992 SCM R 1832, wherein section 34 and the present section 42 of Land Revenue Act have been discussed in detail and it has been held as under:--- "The mutation was incorporated in the subsequent jamabandi of 1970-71 and the name of Musa Khan was substituted by Hakim Khan under section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act and presumption of truth is attached to such entries. Under section 53 thereof if any person considers himself aggrieved by an entry in a record-of-rights, he has to institute a suit for declaration. As such Musa Khan plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for declaration within the statutory period, for disputing the genuineness of the transaction or collusion and fraud in the attestation of the mutation. He, on the admission of his own son as attorney, was a well-known personality of the area, being a landlord, and the father of two practising lawyers and a Thanedar. It is specifically alleged in the plaint that the impugned mutation was entered and attested through collusion with the revenue staff. In view of his status in. Life, the charge of attestation of the mutation by the Revenue Officer through collusion with the appellant, who is an ordinary citizen, is groundless. No collusion or fraud was attributed to Fareedon Khan and Malik Aman Khan, the identifying witnesses of the mutation, nor they or the Revenue Officer were made party to the suit to afford them a chance to explain their position. Thus the allegation of fraud and collusion in the attestation of mutation was neither proved nor stands to reason".
10. No explanation whatsoever has been advanced by the petitioners to meet the point raised regarding legal impact of laches. Though every B fresh jamabandi creates fresh cause of action to the person whose rights are infringed but' in that case plaintiff to whom the cause of action arises being in possession coming to know regarding the wrong entries can challenged the same. But those entries can only be challenged if he is ignorant of any change in the Revenue Record, which was altered or changed, due to any fraud or illegality or inadvertently by the revenue staff, hence, in such like cases rights of aggrieved person are not hit by limitation. No bona fide owner in possession of the suit property can be deprived from his legal right/ownership over the property wherein the Revenue Record is altered or changed on the basis of fraudulent mutation or due to collusion and fraud committed by the Revenue official(s). Fraud cannot be protected under the plea of laches, as fraud if proved even vitiate the very sacred deeds/acts.
11. A similar matter has been addressed by the apex Court in the case of "Messrs Islamabad Farming Cooperative Society and others v. Ghulam Abbas Khan and others" reported as 2011 SCM R 153, wherein it has been held as under:--- "Mutation of sale, attestation of---Scope---Vendor would not be supposed to sign mutation register, rather his signatures or thumb impression might he taken on roznamcha wagiati".
12. The Patwari, who has entered the mutation appeared in the Court and testified the plea of the respondents and also verified that petitioners had received the sale consideration and mutation was attested fairly in favour of the respondents. Respondents had also produced other disinterested witnesses, P.W.-5 Mehboob and P.W.-6 Sher Muhammad, who happened to be resident of same Mohallah and supported the version of respondent and also stated that sale consideration was paid in their presence. The statements of witnesses so produced have not been shattered by the petitioners though they were subjected to lengthy cross-examinations. Moreover, petitioners have also not challenged the other mutation, which is the outcome of disputed mutation. The long-standing entries in the Revenue Record coupled with possession and on the basis of limitation earn the presumption of truth, which have been rightly relied upon by the Courts below. In this regard wisdom can be drawn from case reported as Jamila Khatoon and others v.
Aish Muhammad and others ( 2011 SCM R 222).
13. The petitioner in his own statement has admitted the possession of the respondents whereas in his plaint he has stated that he is owner in possession of the suit property. Nowhere in the plaint it is claimed that the respondents are tenanting the suit-land on their behalf on payment of produce as one maund per kanal. Law does not permit anyone to go beyond his/their pleadings without amendment in the pleadings. In this respect Order VI, rule 7 C.P.C. Is clear on this legal aspect. In this regard reliance can be placed on case reported as Hyder Ali Bhimji v. VIth Additional District Judge Karachi (2012 SCM R 254) wherein it has been held as under:--- "Party is legally bound by case set-up in his pleadings and does not have freedom to depart therefrom and raise a different case---In absence of specific pleadings, court cannot allow any party to grope around and draw remote inferences in his favour from his vague expressions".
14. So far question of limitation is concerned, it has been dealt with in the case of Mst. Gul Farosh Jan v. Mehr Angez and 13 others reported in 2012 M LD-108 the relevant portions are reproduced as under:--- "9. It is admitted fact that from the very day of attestation of mutation of suit mutation, Taj Muhammad (late) being sole owner in possession of the suit property is enjoying the usufruct of the said property. The mutation "has been duly incorporated in the register of owner, hence presumption of truth was attached to the long-standing entries. In this regard reliance can be placed on "Muhammad Amir and others vs Mst Beevi and others reported in 2007 SCMR 614 wherein gift mutation was challenged after 24 years of its attestation.
10. The mutation was attested in 1954 whereas suit has been brought in the year 1996 i,e, after lapse of 42 years. Suit mutation being old more than thirty years, hence under Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat presumption of truth is attached to the said mutation. In this respect, reliance can be placed on "Faqir Muhammad and others v. Fida Muhammad and others reported as 2004 CLC page 162. In the said case mutation was attested in 1946 whereas suit was brought in 1989."
15. It is also an interesting feature of the case that predecessor of petitioner/plaintiff No,1 was examined as P.W.-2 and during his cross-examination has admitted that respondents are owners of the suit property, hence, in the light of admission so made the onus to prove the suit mutation in favour of respondents left no room and become irrelevant. Article 113 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order is clear regarding the said admission as fact admitted need not to be proved.
16. In the wake of what has been discussed above, it is held that the findings of learned lower appellate Court are unexceptionable and would, therefore, not call for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.
17. Consequently, this revision petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.