ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - This civil revision is directed against the judgment dated 4.6.2012 recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby he affirmed the judgment dated 20.6.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Rawalpindi dismissing the suit of the petitioners for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction. As per averments of the plaint the petitioners are owners in possession of the land bearing khasra Nos. 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 and 159 situated in Mauza Ghangu, Taxila, on the basis of their ancestral share and respondent No. 1 has absolutely no right or concern with the said property, and that the petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 11 transferred only the land measuring 1 kanal and 2 marlas out of khasra No. 1041 of the same Mauza put the mutation No. 1848 for 4 kanals, 8 marlas dated 20.7.1993 was a result of forgery, fraud, misrepresentation and is illegal, void ab initio and ineffective upon the rights of the petitioners, therefore, has no legal effect and that respondents be restrained, permanently from interfering into possession of the petitioners. Suit was contested and written statement was filed submitting therein objections regarding cause of action and locus standi were raised amongst others legal as well as factual objections. Issues were framed and the learned Trial Court recorded evidence adduced by both the parties. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties passed the above- said judgment and decree. Being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree the petitioners preferred an appeal, which too met the same fate. Hence, this civil revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide Exh.P.2, the mutation No. 1041 only 1 kanal, 2 marlas was transferred and not 4 kanals, 8 marlas, which mutation was fraudulently in connivance with the revenue staff; admittedly, the land was transferred from khasra No. 104; the learned Courts below admitted that the respondents purchased only 1 kanal, 2 marlas and also observed that due to mistake, entries were incorrectly made; that the provision of Order XXII, Rule 5, C.P.C. Were not complied with when separate issue-wise findings were not given; the Appellate Court also failed to give effect to Section 107 read with Order XLI, Rules 31 and 33, CPC. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, vigorously opposes the prayer in the civil revision by submitting that although 1 kanal, 2 marlas is admitted to have been transferred but khata Nos. 140,141, 329,330 were the subject-matter, therefore, both the Courts have rightly passed the order, hence prays for the dismissal as no interference is required to the concurrent findings of fact.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Admittedly, the mutation No. 1848 is of land measuring 1 kanal, 2 marlas. The property in khara No. 1641 was sold and not from khasra Nos. 154 to 159. Vacant possession of the respondents without having title is not helpful to them. The revenue authorities, even otherwise, were also required to correct the error in the record. The concurrent findings are not to be treated as sacrosanct as the findings are based upon cbnjectural and erroneous presumption of law. Despite the admission in evidence for the measurement of land in khara No. 1041, the view taken by the two Courts below is unreasonable. I am fortified by the view taken in Mubarik Ali through LRs. Vs. Amroo Khan through LRs. (2007 SCM R 1714) and Abdul Sattar Vs. Mst. Anwar Bibi and others (PLD 2007 SC 609).
5. For what has been discussed above, this civil revision is allowed and the judgments impugned herein are seaside.