' MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.---The petitioners have filed this petition to assail the validity of the judgments and decrees dated 30-7-2010 and 03-1-2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lodhran and District Judge, Lodhran, respectively, whereby suit for declaration instituted by Allah Bukhsh deceased, Nazar Muhammad and Nazeer Mai wife of Khadim Hussain was dismissed and an appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the learned appellate Court as well.
2. Succinctly put, the facts that late Allah Bukhsh, Nazar Muhammad and Nazeer Mai instituted a suit for declaration, contending therein that land measuring 16 kanals bearing Khewats Nos. 60, 61, situated at village Dhoray wala, Tchsil and District Lodhran was owned by Mst. Ghulam Sakina wife of Siraj Ahmad, which was purchased by the plaintiffs from her for a consideration of Rs.3,00,000 by means of an oral sale, which reflected in the sale mutation No.857 dated 30-7-1992. It was further averred in the plaint that ever since the purchase made by the plaintiffs, they have been in the uninterrupted possession of the suit land, who also spent an amount of Rs.50,000 in making improvements. On the basis of these averments, it was prayed that the order dated 10-2-1993 passed by the Revenue Officer to the contrary be declared illegal, unlawful, without lawful authority and of no legal effect and as such ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs.
3. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement, denying and controverting all the pleas of the plaintiffs both on the factual and legal plane. It was specifically maintained by the defendants that mutation No.398 dated 27-12-1981 could not find way into the jamabandies due to oversight and negligence of the Revenue Authorities, obliging them to have an order dated 10-2- 1993 passed in their favour by the Revenue Officer to incorporate the aforesaid mutation in the revenue record. As far the claim put forward by the plaintiffs that they had purchased the suit land from Mst. Ghulam Sakina, the same was regarded by them as baseless, groundless and unfounded.
4. The pleadings of the parties crystallized into the following issues:--
(1) Whether entries relating to suit property dated 10-2-1993 are product of connivance by defendant with revenue authorities? OPP.
(2) Whether plaintiffs are owners and in possession of the suit property? OPD.
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their words and conduct to file the suit? OPD.
(4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
(5) Relief.
5. In order to prove their case, one of the plaintiffs, Allah' Bukhsh appeared as P.W.1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint. The plaintiffs also examined Raheem Bukhsh as P.W.2, who corroborated the contents of the petition. It seems that the cross-examination of the said witnesses could not be conducted for one reason or another. Meanwhile, Allah Bukhsh, one of the plaintiffs passed away, with the result that Muhammad Nawaz, his son was examined as P.W.1. Similarly, it is by no means clear as to what happened to Raheem Bukhsh who was initially examined as P.W.2. In the wake of the death of Allah Bukhsh, the plaintiffs examined Muhammad Rafique as P.W.2. To put it differently, another set of witnesses was examined by the plaintiffs, with the result that the testimonies of Allah Bukhsh and Raheem Bukhsh were put on the back burner. In documentary evidence, the plaintiffs produced copy of mutation No 857 as Exh. P-1, copy of Register Haqdaran Zameen as Exh. P-2, copy of Fard Badr/Correction Slip as Exh. P-3, another copy of Register Haqdaran-e-Zameen as Exh. P-4, copy of Register Girdawari as Exh. P-5, copy of mutation No.851 as Exh. P-6, an extract from Register Haqdaran-e-Zameen relating to Khewat No.59 as Exh. P-7, copy of Register Haqdaran-e-Zarneen pertaining to Khewat No.61 as Exh. P-8, copy of Register Haqdaran-e-Zameen in relation to Khewat No.60 as Exh. P-9, copy of Register Haqdaran-e-Zemeen regarding Khewats Nos. 90, 92, 93 as Exh.
P-10, copy of Register Haqdaran-e-Zameen regarding Khewat No.61 as Exh. P-11, copy of Register Haqdaran-e-Zameen with regard to Khewat No.60 as Exh. P-12, copy of Register Haqdaran-e- Zameen with regard to Khewat No.61 as Exh. P-13 and copy of Register Girdawari as Exh. P-14.
6. It goes without saying that in the wake of the recording of the evidence for the plaintiffs, the defendants were called upon to produce evidence in rebuttal. They were provided sufficient opportunities to adduce evidence, but they did not avail of those. Ultimately, their right to produce evidence was closed on 11-4-2007. Although no reference was made to the relevant provisions of law under which the evidence of the defendants was closed, the tenor of the order shows that it was passed under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C.
7. As 'it is, the learned trial Court seized with the suit found issues Nos. 1 and 2, which were the crucial issues, against the plaintiffs, thereby dismissing their suit vide judgment and decree dated 30-7-2010. It bears repeating that issues Nos. 1 and 2 were the critical issues, and the case of the plaintiffs revolved around those issues. Be that as it may, it was held by the learned trial Court that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they were owners in possession of the suit land by virtue of a sale mutation alleged to have been attested in their favour. Furthermore, it was held by it that the plaintiffs have failed to show that the order dated 10-2-1993 passed by the Revenue Officer in favour of the defendants was the outcome of any collusion by them with the revenue authorities.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 30-7-2010, the petitioners herein filed an appeal. It is another matter that the same was dismissed by learned District Judge Lodhran vide judgment and decree dated 3-1-2014. Hence, this revision petition.
9. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the judgments and decrees are the outcome of misreading and non-reading of the material evidence produced by the petitioners; that the learned Courts below did not apply their judicial minds and that it was altogether ignored by them that the defendants were proceeded ex pane, who had failed to rebut the evidence produced by the plaintiffs. In other words, in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal, the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners deserved to be decreed as prayed for.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record appended to the revision petition.
11. There is no denying the fact that the defendants did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal. As stated above, their right to produce evidence was closed on 11-7-2004. But it is axiomatic and trite law that he who alleges must prove his case and that no party can be allowed to take benefit from the weakness of the case of the other party. In other words, the plaintiffs were to stand on their own legs and the onus lay on them to prove that they had purchased the suit property from Mst.
Ghulam Sakina through sale Mutation No.8531 dated 30-7-1992. Even otherwise, they being the beneficiaries had to adduce cogent, credible, strong and convincing evidence that Mst. Ghulam Sakina entered into the transaction of sale with them and that she had received the alleged sale consideration A of Rs.3,00,000 from the plaintiffs. Further, they were required to prove that at the time of making the alleged transaction, independent advice was available to her. In the instant case, the evidence led by the plaintiffs falls far short of the aforesaid standard of evidence. The plaintiffs also failed to prove that Mutation No.398 attested on 27-12-1981 was either attested in contravention of law or why the same could not have been allowed to be incorporated in the revenue record by the Revenue Officer, as he did vide order dated 10-2-1993. Resultantly, without proving the sale consideration as well as the transaction of sale purportedly culminating in Mutation No.857 dated 30-7-1992, the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioners were to be shown the door and that their suit was liable to be dismissed. The concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below have not been shown to be suffering from any infirmity or perversity. Nor have the petitioners been able to show that both the Courts disregarded or did not take into account any principles governing the appraisal of evidence. The findings recorded by them being sound are not liable to be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C., especially when the learned courts below did not overstep their authority nor have they committed any material irregularity either in the trial of the suit or the hearing of the appeal.
12. For what has been stated above. There being no merit in the revision B petition, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.