' WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.---Impugned herein is the judgment and decree dated 2-7-2011 of learned Additional District Judge-III, Swabi whereby appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 23-2-2010 of learned Civil Judge-I, Swabi has been dismissed.
2. Precise facts are that respondents No,1 to 3/plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owner in possession of land measuring 06 kanals vide register Haqdaran-e-Zameen on the basis of Mutation No,2015 attested on 20-5-1976 and an unregistered deed dated 19-2-1996, therefore, the revenue entry in favour of defendant No, 1/predecessor of respondents Nos.9 to 12 and Mutation No,164 executed by said predecessor of respondents Nos.9 to 12 in favour of petitioner/defendant No,2 is wrong, against the facts and law hence liable for cancellation. The second relief sought by respondents Nos.1 to 3/plaintiff is of specific performance on the basis of agreement dated 19-2-1996 to the effect that defendant No,1 be made bound to attest mutation in favour of respondents Nos.1 to 3/plaintiff in respect of land measuring 02 kanals.
3. The averments in the plaint are that predecessor of respondents Nos.1 to 3/plaintiff namely Barkat Khan had purchased land measuring 04 kanals from predecessor of the respondents Nos.9 to 12/defendant No,1 vide the said mutation on a sale consideration of Rs,4000 and since then they are in possession of the suit-land. The predecessor of the plaintiff purchased further land measuring 02 kanals vide unregistered dated 19-2-1996 from the predecessor of respondents Nos.9 to 12/defendant No,1 for. Rs,55969 and that defendant No,1 sold the suit-land measuring 3 kanals, 15 marlas to the petitioner/ defendant No,2 vide Mutation No,164 attested on 20-9-2001 which is liable to be cancelled.
4. Petitioner/defendants were put to notice and the legal heirs of defendant No,1 presently respondents Nos.9 to 12 submitted their reply mainly on the assertion that suit property is not ownership of the petitioner, the mutation and the deed upon which the petitioner is relying is wrong, unjust and a result of fraud and collusion. According to the written statement predecessor of the petitioner has not purchased the suit property nor the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has ever sold the suit property on the predecessor of the petitioner. According to them Mutation No,169 dated 20-1- 1971 are incorrect and wrongly been mutated from respondent No,1 in favour of respondent No,2.
5. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, pro and contra evidence was recorded and the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 23-2-2010 decreed the suit of the respondents Nos.1 to 3 to the extent of four kanals and rest of the prayers to the extent of two kanals were dismissed. Aggrieved of the same, petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 2-7-2011 which necessitated the present revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned judgments and decrees of both the courts below are against the law and facts, therefore, untenable in the eyes of law; that the findings of both the courts are outcome of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the learned trial Court on issue No,6 is wrong and liable to be set aside, since the respondents Nos.1 to 3 had miserably failed to prove the faelum of the alleged mutation while the mutation in favour of the petitioner had been admitted by the rest of the defendants/respondents Nos.9 to 12, hence the same got protection under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; that the learned courts below have committed illegalities and irregularities while passing the impugned judgments besides the same are based on non-reading and misreading of evidence, hence liable to be set aside.
7. Arguments heard and record perused.
8.P.W.3 who is ADK, produced Mutation No-.2015 dated 20-9-1975 as Exh.P.W.3/1, he also produced Fard Jamabandis for the year, 1973-1974, 1981- 1982, 1987-1988 and 1962-1963 which are Exh.P.Ws.
3/2 to 3/5 respectively, rnisl-ahaqayat for the year, 1999-2009 which is Exh.P.W.3/6 along with other revenue record. Bare perusal of mutation Exh.P.W.3/1 reveals that it has been attested from Sherin son of Amirzada defendant No,1 who is dead now) in favour of Barkat Shah (predecessor of respondents Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs), for the , land measuring 04 kanals, the disputed property. The fact of the mutation was incorporated in the subsequent fard jamabandi which is Exh.P.W.3/3. The goshawara malkiat of the parties Exh.P.W.3/11 also supports the entries incorporated in Fard Jamabandis for the year 1980-1981.
9. According to the statement of P.W.3, ADK the entries made in the, name of the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents Nos.1 to 3/plaintiff were deleted without any mutation. There is nothing on record produced by the petitioner and defendant No,1 to show that the defendant No,1 had ever complained about or objected to the said mutation. The petitioner/defendants failed to prove that the mutation was forged, fictitious or fraudulently attested. The possession of the respondents Nos.1 to 3/plaintiff also support the version regarding the attestation of Mutation No,2015 as evident from the site plan Exh.P.W.2/4, therefore, the 'learned trial Court rightly held that the said mutation was attested in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos.1 to 3/ plaintiff.
10. As regarding the alleged unregistered deed is concerned the decreeholders/respondents Nos.1 to 3. Failed to prove the execution of the same as per law, therefore, the trial Court, rightly rejected the same. Both the lower courts while appreciating . The revenue record and the evidence on file correctly ordered the correction to be made in the revenue record to the extent of 04 kanals in favour of respondents Nos.1 to 3/plaintiff.
11. Even otherwise, the learned courts below have attended to the matter by discussing each and every aspect on record and non-suited the, petitioner on sound reasons. The petitioner has failed to prove his claim through overwhelming and reliable reasons, therefore, in this view of the matter when the concurrent findings recorded by lower courts are neither illegal nor suffer from any illegality, the impugned judgments and decree of both the lower courts are in accordance with law and material available on record. No misreading, non-reading or jurisdictional defect has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner, which could justify interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction, a limited one.
12. As a corollary to the above, instant revision petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.