' Through this civil revision, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2005 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sahiwal whereby appeal filed by petitioners was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 04.10.1999 passed by learned Civil Judge, Sahiwal dismissing the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs was upheld.
2. This revision petition was filed as ordinary case in the year 2005 and when was fixed for hearing on 29.11.2005, the vice counsel appeared on behalf of learned counsel for petitioners and sought adjournment. Today, case is fixed for preliminary hearing.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the plaintiffs have challenged the sale Mutation No, 334/1 attested on 30.04.1980 by the predecessor of the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants, the suit was filed on 10.11.1992. Further argues that when the suit was filed, it was the responsibility of the defendants/ beneficiaries to prove the valid attestation of mutation in their favour. While relying upon case "Muhammad Iqbal and another, vs. Mukhtar Ahmad through LRs," (2008 SCMR 855) and "Muhammad Iqbal and 9 others vs. Muhammad Rafique." (2002 YLR 1320), learned counsel argues that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable under the law. Prays for admission of this civil revision for regular hearing.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record, the findings recorded by both the Courts below.
5. In the written statement, it is the case of the defendants that the suit has been filed 'dishonestly.
It is stated that since the year 1967-68, the predecessor of plaintiffs as well as the plaintiffs are selling the property owned by them through various sale mutations in shape of plots and the defendants and their family members and others have purchased various other plots including the suit plots who after purchase, have constructed the houses and are living there. It is further pleaded that through impugned mutation, property was purchased in the year 1980 and after construction of house, the defendants are residing therein and the purchase of land was in the knowledge of the plaintiffs from the day of sale. There is no cavil to the case law referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners but it is equally important that each case is to be decided on the basis of evidence produced by the parties on the file. In this case, there are concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC cannot reinterpret the evidence which was already interpreted by both the Courts below or to extract another conclusion possible from the evidence of the parties other than the conclusion already arrived at by the Courts below. The facts of this case are that plaintiffs have challenged the sale mutation by their predecessor after 12 years of attestation of the sale mutation.
6. When a person challenges the validity of a mutation attested on his behalf and appears before the Court and makes a statement on oath and denies the transaction shown through the mutation and also denies the entries of mutation on his behalf and appearance before the revenue officials at the time of attestation of mutation. In that case, certainly under the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners, onus shifts upon the other side to prove the valid transaction of mutation and attestation of mutation being beneficiaries of a mutation. But in case when a third party challenges the mutation on behalf of the predecessor of that party or on behalf of any other person. In that case, I have a view that the principles noted supra do not apply. Onus shifts when the party challenging the validity .Of that transaction and mutation is able to prove before the Court through solid, concrete and convincing evidence to show that the proceedings of attestation of mutation is invalid. In the case in hand, the position is that the mutation of sale was got attested by the predecessor of the plaintiffs and he remained alive 8 years after the attestation of mutation and the plaintiffs challenged the mutation after 12 years of attestation of the mutation. The case pleaded and set up by the defendants that they constructed houses just after purchase of the property in the year 1980 and are residing therein, has not been denied by the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, the principles laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as this Court in the judgments noted supra are not applicable in this case, therefore same are not helpful for the petitioners.
7. It is in the statement of PW-1 when the same was recorded on 10.05.1994 that his father passed away 6 years ago. Meaning thereby that his father remained alive even 8 years after attestation of the impugned mutation. When the defendants have proved that just after purchase of the suit land, they constructed their houses and are living therein then how the plaintiffs can deny the knowledge of the sale from the day of sale. In these circumstances, how it can be said that the defendants be directed to prove the sale in question in their favour when question of limitation was to be satisfied by the plaintiffs/petitioners. While relying upon the case "HO Muhammad Din Vs. Malik Muhammad Abdullah" (PLD 1994 SC 291), "Mat. Rashida Hussain Vs. Qazi Aslam Hussain and 8 others" (PLD 1983 Lahore 687) and "Ghulam Muhammad Vs. Malik Abdur Rashid and 2 others" (2002 CLC 295), I am unable to disagree with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below and except on Issue No, 3, this suit was certainly time-barred as the father of the plaintiffs remained alive for 8 years after attestation of the impugned mutation and after that, plaintiffs consumed 4 years more for filing of the suit and it is not denied by the plaintiffs that from the date of purchase, the defendants have constructed their houses and reside there which clearly shows their knowledge of sale and in this view of the matter, the suit was also time-barred. No case for interference on issues of facts by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the, CPC has been made out. Therefore, this civil revision being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed in limine.