' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Khanpur whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner and others was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Khanpur dated 13-9-1988 whereby the suit filed by the petitioner and others was dismissed.
2. Petitioner and others filed a suit for possession on the basis of ownership on 9-5-1982 challenging the validity of Mutation No. 375 sanctioned on 6-1-1923. The case of the petitioner is that their predecessor gave the suit land to the predecessor of defendants/respondents on lease.
Re states that they were paying the lease money to the petitioner/plaintiffs regularly and a year before they stopped paying this money, therefore, they filed this suit. The written statements were filed by various sets of defendants Who contested the suit. The learned trial Court after framing the issues invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. The learned trial Court decided crucial issue No.3 against the plaintiffs and also decided issues Nos. 2, 1, 4, 5, 8 and 6 against the plaintiffs, and dismissed their suit, whereas issues Nos. 7 and 9 were decided against the defendants. Thereafter the learned first appellate Court upset the findings on issues Nos.1 and 3 but dismissal decree was upheld and appeal was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the findings on issues Nos. I and 3 have been reversed by the first appellate Court, therefore, the suit was liable to be decreed. The learned counsel states that the onus of issue No.4 was on the defendants because it was on their objection that issue No.4 was framed. Further that both the courts below have wrongly decided that on the basis of principle of laches and acquisance the suit was not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent states that after sixty years of attestation of the impugned mutation, the suit was not maintainable and further that the proceedings of the impugned mutation was the result of due process of law which took place sixty years ago, therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to challenge the said document and they were not entitled to file this suit; that the story narrated by the plaintiff in their suit was absolutely wrong which was rejected by both the courts below. In, this view of the matter he has prayed for dismissal of this civil revision.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. First of all, the findings of learned first appellate Court on issue No.3 that the impugned Mutation No. 375 dated 6-1-1923, are not that this mutation is result of forgery and fraud as pleaded by the plaintiffs in their plaint. The learned first appellate court has minutely scrutinized the mutation and recorded its findings. It is clear from the scrutiny of the record as well as of the evidence produced by the parties that there are some deviations by the revenue officers while attesting this mutation.
The plaintiffs had challenged this mutation after a period of sixty years, therefore, the direct documentary as well as oral evidence was not even could be produced by either of the parties.
Second; that the record of Rozenamcha Waqiati of Patwar is the record of the Patwari who retains with him and -it is not preserved as official record for indefinite period, therefore, when the attestation of mutation had been challenged after 60 years it was impossible for the defendants to produce the direct evidence and the documentary supporting evidence to prove this document.
Even plaintiffs have produced this document as Exh.P-5 which is a certified copy of the official record and admittedly it is a document more than 30 years old. In accordance with Articles 100 and 101 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 the presumption is attached to the entries of this document.
Meaning thereby, the entry made by a Patwari, Qanungo, and Revenue officers will be presumed to be correct. At the time when this mutation was attested no signatures or thumb-impressions of the parties were necessary in accordance with applicable Land Revenue Act at that time. In this view of the matter in my view the findings recorded by the first appellate Court on issue No.3 are not in accordance with law. In my view this document did create rights in favour of the transferees, i.e. The predecessors of the defendants. Furthermore it was incorporated in the next Jamabandi and these entries were carried in the Jamabandi even till today. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court on issues Nos. 3 and 1 are not in accordance with law which are reversed.
7. On all other issues there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. The law of limitation has been rightly applied by both the courts below, as under section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908 court itself is bound to apply the law of limitation, therefore, these findings need not interference by this Court.
8. When questioned the learned counsel for the respondents that whether respondents have filed cross objections on the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court on issues Nos.1 and 3, the answer is no.
9. I have noticed that no part of the decree is against the respondents as the suits filed by the petitioner/plaintiffs have been finally dismissed therefore, in my view the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court on issues Nos. I and 3 can be scrutinized by this Court even the cross objections in accordance with Order XLI,' Rule 33, C.P.C. Have not been filed.
10. In the light of what has been discussed above I think that there is no illegality or jurisdictional defect in the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below, therefore, this revision has no merits and is-dismissed with no order as to the costs.