' ATIR MAHMOOD, J.---By way of filing present civil revision, the petitioners have impugned the judgment and decree dated 3-11-2000 passed by learned District Judge Rahim Yar Khan who while accepting the appeal of respondents Nos.1 to 12/ plaintiffs decreed their suit and set aside the judgment and decree dated 26-11-1999 whereby the suit of respondents Nos.1 to 12/plaintiffs was dismissed by learned Civil Judge Rahim Yar Khan.
2. The cause of action as contained in this petition is that on 7-3-1988, respondents Nos.1 to 12/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and declaration alleging that their predecessor-in-interest Maqsood Hussain had leased out the suit property, fully described in the head note of the plaint, to the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners namely Ch. Muhammad Tufail who got prepared a fictitious Mutation No,974, dated 31-3-1968 in his favour. They averred in the plaint that the said mutation as well as subsequent sale transactions/mutations being illegal and unlawful are ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs.
3. The suit was hotly contested by the petitioners and respondents Nos.13 to 30 mainly on the ground that the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners and respondents Nos.13 to 30 namely Ch. Muhammad Tufail had purchased the suit property from Maqsood Hussain, predecessor-in- interest of respondents Nos.1 to 12/plaintiffs vide Mutation No,974, dated 31-3-1968. Ch. Muhammad Tufail was accordingly given possession of the property. Thereafter, ten other transfers/alienation of the property took place through Exh.P-9 to Exh.P-17, out of which eight transactions are based upon registered sale deeds and two are mutations of inheritance. Ch. Muhammad Tufail and subsequent vendees are in possession of the property since 1968.
4. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, learned trial court settled following issues:-- "ISSUES
(1) Whether plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit property and Mutation No,974 dated 31-3- 1968 and subsequent Mutation No,1463 dated 23-2-1986, 1533 dated 20-8-1976, 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891 dated 24-5-1980, 2099 dated 19-9-1981, 2409 dated 27-1-1983, 2919 dated 19-7-1985, 3118 dated 23-2-1986, 3383 dated 5-4-1987, are void, illegal, collusive, without any consideration, therefore, inoperative against the rights of plaintiffs? OPP
(2) Whether the defendants are in continuous possession of the suit property since 1968 therefore, the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD
(4) Whether the suit has been incorrectly valued for the purposes of court fee, if so, what is correct value? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiff has come to the court with unclear hands, therefore, not entitled to any relief? OPD
(6) Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs under section 35-A of C.P.C., If so, to what extent? OPD (6.A) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of possession in respect of disputed property claimed by them? OPP
(7) Relief?"
' After recording oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties, learned trial court proceeded to dismiss the suit of respondents Nos.1 to 12/plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 26-11-1999. The plaintiffs feeling dissatisfied filed an appeal which was allowed by learned District Judge Rahim Yar Khan decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 3-11- 2000 which has been challenged through the instant civil revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that there is a contradiction in the statements of the plaintiff Muhammad Shafi as in the pleadings he states that the Mutation No,974 has been got prepared fraudulently whereas while appearing as P.W.3 he states that it is fictitious and fabricated. He submits that the instant suit was filed after twenty years of the date of sanctioning of the mutation in question on the ground of fraud which being badly hit by law of limitation was liable to be dismissed on this score alone as maximum period of limitation provided by law was six years. He argues that the PWs themselves admit that the plaintiff Muhammad Shafi came to know about the sale transaction just one year of its happening but the plaintiffs remained slept over their rights for a long period of twenty years which cannot be justified. Learned counsel states that the plaintiffs have produced three witnesses including the plaintiff Muhammad Shafi and all the three witnesses are interested one being closely related to the plaintiff Muhammad Shafi. He avers that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case even on merits as the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is based on hearsay, therefore, the learned trial court rightly dismissed the suit whereas the learned lower appellate court unlawfully shifting the burden of proof from the plaintiffs to the petitioners-defendants decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by impugned judgment and decree which is not sustainable in the eye of law. He prays that this civil revision be allowed, the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate court be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court be restored.
6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and fully supports the judgment and decree impugned. Learned counsel argues that since the petitioners-defendants were beneficiary of the disputed Mutation No,974, therefore, burden to prove the same was rightly shifted to them who have failed to prove the same. He contends that the possession of suit property was given to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as tenant who fraudulently got prepared the mutation in question which is illegal and unlawful as once a tenant is always a tenant as per settled principles of law. He further submits that if Mutation No,974 is declared void ab initio, the subsequent mutations will be of no consequence. He avers that this civil revision is without any merit, hence merits dismissal.
7. I have heard the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with their able assistance.
8. There are two points which require consideration by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Firstly, whether the Mutation No,974 dated 31-3-1968 was rightly and lawfully attested and secondly, whether the suit was filed within the period of limitation. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the suit filed by the respondents was hopelessly barred by time as Mutation No,974 was rightly attested on 31-3-1968 whereas the suit was filed by the sons of vendor Maqsood Hussain on 7-3-1986, i,e, after about 18 years of attestation of the mutation, as such; it, according to learned petitioner's counsel, was liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
9. The factum of death of Maqsood Hussain predecessor of the plaintiffs has not been mentioned in the plaint but during the course of evidence, P.W.1 Rasheed Ahmed deposed in his examination- in-chief that Maqsood Hussain died. In the year 1971 whereas P.W.2 Bashir Ahmed stated in his cross-examination that Muhammad Shafi came to know about the mutation after one year of the death of Maqsood Hussain. He further stated that he was told by Muhammad Shafi that the property has wrongly been mutated by Muhammad Tufail in his name. P.W.3 Muhammad Shafi while appearing as his own witness stated that his father died in 1967 in Karachi whereas this fact was not mentioned by him in the plaint.
10. Muhammad Akram DW-1 produced a copy of the Mutation No,974. DW-2 Mian Abdul Sami, Advocate identified the signatures of his father who was the Councilor of the Union Committee in the year 1968 and who identified Maqsood Hussain at the time of attestation of mutation. DW-4 Haji Muhammad Akram Naib Tehsildar deposed that his father was Tehsildar in the year 1968 of Teshil Rahim Yar Khan. DW-4 identified the signature and handwriting of his deceased father on Mutation No,974 which was sanctioned by his deceased father. DW-5 Muhammad Lateef and DW- 6 Ghulam Haider are the witnesses of the deal between Muhammad Tufail and Maqsood Hussain on the sale mutation. Muhammad Ameen appeared himself as well as on behalf of other defendants as DW-7 and deposed that the property was purchased from Maqsood Hussain by Haji Muhammad Tufail who died in the year 1982. He further deposed that.They are in possession of the property and Muhammad Shafi one of the plaintiffs was well aware of the said sale. In cross- examination, this witness categorically stated that Muhammad Shafi told him that his father has sold the land. At that time, no other person was present and at that time Muhammad Shafi was an adult and in 1982 he was a young man.
11. It is crystal clear from the scrutiny of evidence that the stance taken by P.W.3 Muhammad Shafi that Maqsood Hussain died in 1967 prior to attestation of the disputed mutation is contradictory to the statements made by P.Ws. 1 and 2 who state that Maqsood Hussain died in the year 1971 and that Muhammad Shafi became aware of the mutation after about one year of death of Maqsood Hussain. I am guided by the law laid down in case titled "Mukhtar Ahmad v. Malik Muhammad Shafi (1991 M LD 668)" that the party producing the evidence is bound by the statements of its own witnesses. At the maximum, Muhammad Shafi was aware about the attestation of the mutation in favour of Ch. Muhammad Tufail in 1972 but he instituted the suit in 1986, i,e, about 16 years of date of knowledge and kept mum for such a long period without any lawful reason. On the other hand, the assertions made by the defendants are fully corroborated by the witnesses that Maqsood Hussain was alive at the time of mutation and did not expire prior to sanctioning of the disputed mutation.
Even, signatures of the deceased Tehsildar who sanctioned the mutation in dispute and deceased Advocate who identified Maqsood Hussain at the time of attestation of the mutation were identified and confirmed by their respective sons. Further, in the entire evidence led by the plaintiffs it has nowhere been established that Maqsood Hussain did not die in the year 1971, i,e, subsequent to the disputed mutation which was attested on 31-3-1968 and rather he died in 1967 as asserted by Muhammad Shafi.
12. From the above narrated facts, it is clear that the trial court has rightly decided the issue No,3 that the suit was barred by time whereas the findings of the appellate court are quite sketchy which has wrongly reversed the findings of the trial court on issue No,3 on the ground that the mutation is result of fraud and misrepresentation. In my opinion, the findings of the appellate court are not sustainable in view of the law laid down in cases titled "Ch. Muhammad Ashraf and others v. Mst. Gulshan Ara and others (2008 YLR 650)", "Muhammad Shafi through legal representatives v.
Abdul Rehman through legal representatives (PLD 2005 Lahore 129)", and "Mehandia v. Juma through L.Rs, (2011 M LD 1801)" wherein it has consistently been held that a suit for declaration can only be filed within the period of six years from the date when the right to sue accrued. As it is apparent from the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that Maqsood Hussain vendor, died in the year 1971 and the plaintiffs came to know about the disputed mutation after one year of the death of Maqsood Hussain, the suit cannot be termed to have been filed within the period of limitation which is upto six years but the suit has been filed after about eighteen years after the date of attestation of the mutation which is badly hit by law of limitation.
13. Another important factor in this regard is that the said Maqsood Hussain never challenged the said mutation in his life time. The plaintiffs have not been able to prove that the Mutation No,974 dated 31-3-1968 was void, illegal and collusive and that Maqsood Hussain died prior to the date of attestation of the said mutation. Onus to prove Issue No,1 was upon the respondents-plaintiffs through affirmative evidence. P. W.1 to P.W.3 could not pass the test of cross-examination whereas petitioners/predecessors of late Muhammad Tufail proved the attestation of Mutation No,974 by producing DW-I to DW-7, however, nothing could be brought on record by the respondents/plaintiff in rebuttal. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the dictums laid down in cases titled "Muhammad Akram and another v. Altaf Ahmed (PLD 2003 SC 688)" and "Ghulam Hussain Khan v. Mst. Aseela Begum and 3 others (1982 CLC 1709)." The case-law relied upon by the respondents-plaintiffs is not applicable to the present case as the facts of the case relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs are quite distinguishable and not attracted to the case in hand. In the circumstances, the suit filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs having been instituted after 18 years of attestation of mutation and about 16 years of alleged knowledge of the mutation was badly barred by time and was liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
14. For the aforementioned reasons, this civil revision is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree dated 3-11-2000 passed by learned District Judge Rahim Yar Khan is set aside and the judgment and decree dated 26-11-1999 passed by learned Civil Judge Rahim Yar Khan is restored.