AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this civil revision, petitioners have challenged the judgment & decree dated 22.02.2011 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Gujranwala, whereby the appeal filed by them was dismissed, and the judgment & decree dated 31.10.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala, whereby the suit filed, by the petitioners was partially decreed.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners- plaintiffs filed a suit on 28.07.2003, wherein they challenged the mutation No. 299 sanctioned on 27.06.1995 of inheritance of Soba Khan s/o Boota, mentioned in Para 3 of the plaint the complete pedigree-table of said Soba Khan and pleading therein that in mutation of inheritance petitioners have been ignored and the property was distributed between defendants No. 1 to 5. In the suit they have also challenged the .Mutation of exchange No. 302 attested on 27.08.1995 and mutation No. 368, dated 22.12.1999 to the extent of share of plaintiffs.
3. The defendant No. 1 opted not to appear before the Court. The defendants No. 2 to 5 filed consenting written statement, whereas defendants No. 3 and 7 to 9 filed their separate written statements and contested the suit. Learned Trial Court framed issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. After the close of trial, learned Trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 31.10.2009 partially decreed the suit to the extent that plaintiffs are legal heirs of Soba Khan deceased, hence, are entitled to inherit the suit land and to the extent of setting aside the transaction suit was dismissed. Learned Trial Court held that these transactions do not infringe the rights of plaintiffs.
The appeal was filed by the plaintiffs before learned first Appellate Court, which was also dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 22.02.2011. Hence, this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners when confronted to the position that why he is pressing for setting aside the transaction by defendants No. 1 to 5 of suit in favour of defendants No. 6 to 9 when by these transactions rights of plaintiffs are not injured, as the property in the name of defendants No. 1 to 5 even after these transactions is sufficient to meet with the claim of petitioners-plaintiffs.
Learned counsel stated that defendants No. 6 to 9/purchasers or transferee through exchange are in possession of specific property, therefore the petitioners-plaintiffs were forced to file this petition.
Learned counsel further when confronted that whether the property sold through transfer by defendants No. 1 to 5 is more than their entitlement after implementation of decree passed by learned Trial Court. The answer is in negative.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 has supported the findings recorded by two Courts below and prays for dismissal of instant civil revision. For service of respondents No. 1-b, 1-d, 1-e and 1f, publication issued in the newspaper has been received. No one is in attendance on their behalf. Therefore, they are proceeded against ex parte.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, for respondent No. 6 at full length and also gone through the record minutely.
7. I have noticed that through the impugned mutations share in the Khata has been transferred, therefore no question of transfer of specific properly from joint Khata arises and if the purchasers are in possession of specific property, the remedy for the petitioners lies anywhere else but they cannot challenge the judgment & decree which has been passed in their favour. In the circumstances of case, it seems that the appeal and revision have been filed for the interest of defendants No. 1 to 5, as by the decree granted by learned Trial Court, the petitioners-plaintiffs were given their due in the suit property and to that extent suit was decreed. Now the petitioners want that the transactions by defendants No. 1 to 5 be also declared null and void, which shows that they want to facilitate defendants No. 1 to 5 and with their connivance revision has been filed.
In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by both the Courts below are in accordance with law and facts on record, which need not be interfered with by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. I see no force in this civil revision and the same is dismissed.
Civil revision .