' M. SOHAIL IQBAL BHATTI, J.---Through this civil revision, the petitioners have challenged the impugned judgments and decrees dated 12.03.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ahmadpur East whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and 27.7.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, 2nd Class, Ahmadpur East whereby he decreed the suit filed by respondent No,1.
2. The facts of the case are that respondent No, 1 Mst. Maqsood Mai/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the petitioners and respondents No, 2 and 3 and one another defendant asserting therein that predecessors of the parties namely Kaloo son of Wasaya was owner of agricultural property fully described in the head-note of the plaint and she being the legal heir of Kaloo was entitled to her legal share in the property owned by Kaloo. Respondent No, 1 also challenged the legality of the Mutations No, 355 and 356 dated 25.3.1992 showing sale in favour of petitioner No, 1 and tamleek in favour of petitioners No, 2 and 3 respectively on the ground of misrepresentation, fraud while alleging that the seller/donor/deceased Kaloo never appeared before any revenue officer. The defendants vehemently contested the suit, denied the assertions of the plaintiff by way of filing the written statement. Out of divergent pleadings Of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following issues:---
(1) Whether the mutation No, 355 and mutation No, 356 in favour of the defendants are illegal, against facts, fraudulent, collusive, and ineffective upon the right of the plaintiff? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property as legal heir of halo deceased?
OPP
(3) If the above-said issues are proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree as reasoned in the plaint? OPP
(4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
(5) Relief.
3. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence oral as well as documentary. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27.07.2011 passed by learned Trial Court.
Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the defendants before learned Additional District Judge, Ahmad Pur East which was dismissed through judgment and decree dated 12.03.2014. Hence, this civil revision.
4. The main reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the legal position that the-suit filed by the respondent No, 1 Mst. Maqsood Mai was bad for mis-joinder of causes of action and thus came within the mischief of {{MISSING DATA}}