' SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J.-- Through this revision petition the petitioners have challenged the vices of judgments and decrees dated 28-9-2011 and 20-10-2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge Khairpur Tamewali and the learned Additional District Judge, Khairpur Tamewali, respectively.
2. Succinctly, the petitioners filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of mutations before the learned Civil Judge, Khairpur Tamianwali, District Bahawalpur, which was duly contested by respondents Nos.1 and 2. The learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 17-6- 1993 dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners being time-barred against which the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Khairpur Tamianwali, which too met with the same fate vide judgment dated 5-1-1994. Being aggrieved with the judgments of courts below the petitioners filed C.R. No.948-1994/BWP before this Court which was allowed vide order dated 7- 4-2011 and the matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court for decision afresh after framing all the issues arising out of pleadings of the parties. The learned trial Court vide order dated 21-7-2011 framed as many as 12 issues. Both the parties again produced their oral as well as documentary evidence and the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28-9-2011 dismissed the suit of the petitioners against which they preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20-10-2012; hence the instant revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that findings of both the courts below on issues Nos.1, 3, 9 and 10 are illegal and not sustainable on legal as well as factual premises; that respondents No.1 and 2 have failed to prove Tamleek Mutation No.59; that neither any identifying witness nor any official from the Revenue Department has been produced in evidence by the respondents; that onus to prove a document is on its beneficiary; that though essentials of a valid gift are missing in the case in hand but both the courts below have illegally held that Tamleek has been proved in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the cases reported as Jang Bahadar and others v. Toti Khan and another (2007 SCMR 497), Mst. Kulsoom Bibi and another v. Muhammad Arif and others (2005 SCMR 135), Sher Baz Khan and others v. Mst. Malkani Sahibzadi Tiwana and others (PLD 2003 SC 849), Barkat Ali through L.Rs and others v. Muhammad Ismail through L.Rs (2002 SCMR 1938), Nazir Ahmad and others v.
Abdullah and others (1997 SCMR 281) and Tooti Gul and 2 others v. Irfanuddin (1996 SCMR 1386).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while defending impugned judgments and decrees submits that though mother of the plaintiffs remained alive for many years after attestation of mutation of gift but neither she nor Nazar Muhammad, the donor challenged the vires of gift mutation in favour of the respondents Nos.1 and 2, therefore, the suit filed by the petitioners after about 35 years of the same was barred by the law of limitation; that the petitioners/plaintiffs only filed suit seeking declaration but the same was not competent without seeking relief of possession as the possession was admittedly with the respondents; that the land left by Nazar. Muhammad, as legacy after his death, was mutated in favour of his legal heirs including mother of the plaintiffs, who later on sold the same in the year 1967; that neither date of knowledge nor any specification of alleged fraud towards attestation of the mutations in question has been mentioned by the petitioners/plaintiff in their plaint; that concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below cannot be upset by this. Court in revision jurisdiction and that impugned -judgments and decrees are based on true appreciation of evidence. In support of his stance, learned Counsel has relied' upon the cases reported as Muhammad Rustam and another v.
Mst. Makhan Jan and others 2013 SCMR 299; Abdul Haq and another v. Mst. Surrya Begum and others (2002 SCMR 1330), Guldar Khan v. Isa Khan through L.Rs and others (1993 SCMR 2099), Aadut. v. Noor Ahmad (2012 MLD 802), Mukhtar Ahmad and 4 others v. Taj Din and others (2012 MILD 873), Muhammad Bakhsh and 15 others v. Allah Wasayia and 2 others PLD 2007 Lah. 185, Muhammad Hassan and others v. Dur Marjan and 14 others (2005 CLC 118), Muhammad Mian v. Syed Shamimullah and 2 others (PLD 1993 Karachi 146) and Said Rasool v. Muhammad Tufail 1989 MLD 165.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents appended with this petition in addition to the case-law cited at the bar.
6. The petitioners instituted a suit seeking declaration to the effect that they being descendents of Nazar Muhammad were entitled to the legacy left by him and the mutation of Gift bearing No.59, attested on 16-7-1956, and mutation of inheritance attested in the year 1964 to the extent of respondents Nos.1 and 2 being result of fraud and forgery are inoperative on their rights. The said suit was contested by the respondents by submitting written statement with the averments that Nazar Muhammad gifted the land in question to the respondents with his free-will. To prove their plea of forgery and fraud, the petitioners produced Bahadar Khan as. P.W.1 who during his cross- examination admitted, in unequivocal words that the respondents are in possession of the suit property and they have also installed a tubewell there. He further admitted that government cesses were also being paid by them. Shamshad Ahmad, P.W.2, admitted that no share of produce was ever given to Sukho Mai in his presence. He further admitted that since the death of Nazar Muhammad the land in question was in possession of the respondents. Rasheed Ahmad, one of the plaintiffs/petitioners appeared as P.W.3 and admitted in his cross-examination that on the death of Nazar Muhammad property measuring 1-Kanal, 7-Marlas was mutated in favour of their mother. He also admitted that the said land was sold by their mother to Riaz Peerzada etc. Further, P.W.4 admitted in his cross-examination that though he wrote in his suit that the impugned mutation was got attested by Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Arif but the same was got sanctioned by Allah Ditta and Fayyaz, maternal uncles of the respondents. The sudden U-turn contradiction on the part of said P.W. Is also fatal to the case of the petitioners. Admittedly, at the time of attestation of mutations respondents were minors, therefore, nobody can expect anything untoward from them. The stand taken by P.W.1 & P.W.2 that the respondents had been paying share of produce to Sukho Mai, mother of the plaintiffs, stood negated from the admission made by P.W.3 that they were never allowed by the respondents to enter in the suit property. He further admitted that the respondents have constructed their houses in the suit property. He further went on to admit that the plaintiffs never paid any government cess. It is also important to note over here that the plaintiffs nowhere in their suit claimed that the defendants were in possession of the suit property as tenant whereas the entire evidence led by them revolves around the sad fact. Further, the witnesses produced by the plaintiffs contradicted each other on material points and miserably failed to establish that the mutations in question were result of some forgery or fraud. It is well- entrenched by now that mere assertion of element of fraud or forgery is not sufficient rather the A plaintiff should be very specific in this respect which in my view is not the position in the case in hand.
7. Another important aspect of the matter in hand is that the suit property is admittedly in possession of the respondents but the petitioners while filing the suit did B not pray for possession as a consequential relief thus the very foundation of the suit filed by the petitioner is also at stake.
8. Now coming to the contention of the petitioners that as the respondents were beneficiary of the impugned mutations, therefore, they were liable to prove contents thereof, I am of the opinion that there is no cavil with the proposition that initially it is duty of the beneficiary to establish execution of the document but the same shifts on the shoulders of the other side when they themselves have alleged the element of fraud and forgery. If any case law is required a reference can be made to the case reported as Mazloom Hussain v. Abid Hussain and 4 others (PLD 2008 SC 571) wherein while dealing with the said issue the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has inter alia held as under:- "10. The High Court has observed that the entries in the Revenue Record in favour of the appellants were not made in accordance with the prescribed procedure provided in law. The answer to the foregoing objection is that the said entries emerged in the record of rights for the years 1965-66 have not been challenged by the plaintiff-respondents Nos.1 and 2 before the Revenue functionaries or through a civil suit. As provided in section 52 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, the presumption of truth is attached to the revenue entries which has also been upheld by this Court in the case of Hakim Khan v. Aurangzeb and another 1979 SCMR 625). The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: "The entries in Jamabandis, as is obvious, carried a statutory presumption of truth under section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, (XV of 1887) and section 52, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)."
' The documents produced by the plaintiff/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 also correspond with evidence produced by the appellant. As against the aforesaid entries, mere bald verbal statements of the kind can hardly cut any ice. Even otherwise, the documentary evidence cannot be rebutted by oral evidence. Another case Mt. Wallan v. Fazala and others AIR 1939 PC 114 can also be referred in this behalf.
11. Where a presumption of truth is attached to a document, it cannot be discarded unless proved otherwise by convincing and cogent evidence and the burden of proof that the entries in the record of rights are wrong, is on the party who alleges it. Reliance can be placed in this context on the cases of Sundar Singh v. Chhajju Khan AIR 1934 Lahore 309 and The Evacuee Trust Property Board and others v. Haji Ghulam Rasul Khokhar and others 1990 SCMR 725."
9. Admittedly, the petitioners have challenged Mutation No. 59 attested on 16-7-1956 and the subsequent Mutation of inheritance No.83 sanctioned on 3-1-1964 by filing suit in the year 1991 meaning thereby that they have filed the suit after 35 years of sanctioning of Mutations Nos.59 and 27 years from the date of attestation of Mutation of Inheritance No.83. Thus, the suit filed by the petitioner was much beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Furthermore, Nazar Muhammad, donor, as well as the mother of the petitioners remained, alive for a long period after attestation of Mutation No.56 but none of them ever challenged the veracity of mutations in favour of the respondents, thus, the donor as well as mother of the petitioners acquiesced with the, attestation of mutations in favour of the respondents.
10. It is also important to observe over Here that the mutation of inheritance regarding Nazar Muhammad was attested on 3-1-1964 whereunder the mother of the petitioners also inherited land to the extent of her share which she further sold to Riaz Peerzada etc. If the mutation in favour of the respondents was not valid or the same was result of some forgery or fraud, as alleged by the petitioners, the mother of the petitioners was well within her right to challenge the same but none of the heirs challenged the same. This fact also affirms that the mutation of gift in favour of the respondents was valid. While dealing with the said question the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Rustam and another (Supra) has laid law to the following effect:-- "3. Having heard petitioners' learned counsel at some length, we find that admittedly the impugned mutation of inheritance bearing No.571 dated 9-7-1927 was never challenged by Mst.
Karam Jan; that she remained alive till 1975 and no reason whatsoever is reflected either in the plaint or in the evidence led to indicate as to why she did not challenge the said mutation. It has never been the case of the petitioners that either they or their predecessor-in-interest were unaware of the said mutation. In the afore-referred, circumstances, the judgment of the learned High Court is unexceptionable."
11. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners that the respondents failed to establish ingredients of a valid gift in their favour by their predecessor-in-interest is concerned, suffice it to observe that firstly it was duty of the plaintiffs/petitioners to establish the allegation of fraud and forgery, as alleged by them, and then it was incumbent upon the respondents/defendants to dispel their claim. Further, the filing of application by the respondents to produce a person from the Revenue staff also strengthen their claim.
12. It is of common knowledge that long-standing entries in the Revenue Record carry presumption of correctness unless and until the same are proved otherwise. On the strength of mutations, subject-matter of the F suit, the respondents are in possession of the land for the last four decades, therefore, presumption which can safely be inferred tilts in favour of the respondents. Reliance in this regard is placed on the cases reported as Jamila Khatoon and others v. Aish Muhammad and others (2011 SCMR 222), Muhammad Miskeen and others v. Noor Muhammad and others (2011 SCMR 808), Lal Khan through L.Rs v. Muhammad Yousaf through L.Rs. (PLD 2011 SC 657), Nawab Khan and others v. Said Karim Khan and others (1997 SCMR 1840) and Hakim Khan v. Nazeer Ahmad Lughmani and 10 others (1992 SCMR 1832).
13. Now coming to the case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case inasmuch as the case of Jang Bahadar and others (Supra) was regarding validity of a will wherein it was held that nobody can claim any benefit on the basis of a document being 30 years old which is not the position in the case in hand. In the case of Mst. Kulsoom Bibi and another (Supra) it was held that no specific words are meant to define fraud rather the words conspiracy, fakeness and forgery are sufficient but the situation in the case in hand is totally different as the evidence produced by the petitioners to prove their plea is totally deficient in all respects. Likewise, in the case of Sher Baz Khan and others (Supra) it was has been held that no presumption of correctness is attached to mutation of sale which is not the position in the case in hand. Further, in the said case validity of sale transaction was challenged by a minor girl having knowledge about the same but in the instant case inaction on the part of the donor as well as mother of the petitioners to challenge mutation of gift in favour of the respondents speaks otherwise. Similarly, in the case of Barkat Ali through L.Rs and others (Supra) the matter in pith and substance was regarding deprivation of female heirs through frivolous gifts but in the case in hand the petitioners have miserably failed to establish any element of forgery or fraud on the part of the respondents. Now coming to the case of Nazir Ahmad and others (Supra) the question in that case was regarding succession of children of a pre-deceased son and daughter whereas in the matter of Tooti Gul and 2 others (Supra) the matter was regarding transaction of sale and not of mutation.
14. Even otherwise, concurrent findings of facts cannot be upset by this court in its revisional jurisdiction in a casual manner as held in the case of Muhammad Idrees and others v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others (2010 SCMR 5).
15. For what has been discussed above, instant revision is dismissed with no order as to costs.