' MRS. IRSHAD QAISER, J.---Shah Qasim and three others petitioners, have directed the instant revision petition against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge-I, Haripur dated 8-11-2005, whereby the appeal of the present petitioners against the judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge-IV, Haripur dated 4-12-2002 was dismissed.
2. The brief but essential facts leading to the present revision petition are that the present petitioners instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that the petitioners are owners in possession of 07/24 share of suit Khasra Nos.2154 and 2125 measuring 19 Kanals 09 Marlas situated in Modah Behri Bandi, Tehsil and District Haripur through Mutation No,3190 attested on 26- 4-1961 and the present respondents have no concerned with the said property. That the petitioners are also owners in possession of 07/24 share of the suit Khasra Nos.2153 and 2560 measuring 19 Karats 07 Marlas through Mutation No,3191. The entries in the revenue record in the name of respondents are wrong, illegal, against the facts, fraudulent, fictitious and ineffective upon the rights of the present petitioners and liable to be corrected.
3. The present respondents were summoned by the learned trial Court. They appeared and contested the suit by raising various legal as well as factual objections. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed issues.
4. After framing of issues the, parties were directed to produce their pro and contra evidence in support of their contentions. The parties produced their evidence in respect of their claims and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the suit of the present petitioners was dismissed.
Aggrieved from the said order, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the appellate forum, which also met the same fate. Hence, the present revision petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
6. It is contended by the petitioners that they had purchased the suit property from respondent No, 1 Arsha and the predecessor of respondents Nos.2 to 6 namely Abib Shah, Abbas Shah, Gharib Shah, Sakhi Shah sons of Muhammad Shah and Mst. Batool Bibi (deceased) through Mutations Nos.3190 and 3191 and have paid the due consideration and the respondents have no concerned with the disputed property. But the entries in the revenue record in the name of respondents is wrong, illegal, against the fact, fraudulent, fictitious and liable to cancellation and correction in the name of petitioners.
7. These arguments were resisted by learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that neither the respondents nor their predecessors have sold the suit property to petitioners and they have never received any sale consideration from petitioners.
8. Now the main question for determination is that whether the petitioners have been able to prove that they are the owners in possession of 7/24 share in suit Khasra Nos. 2154, 2125 measuring 19 Kanals 9 Marlas and Khasra Nos.2153 and 2560 measuring 19 Kanals 7 Marlas through Mutation No,3190 attested on 26-4-1961 and Mutation No,3191, and they have purchased the same through a valuable sale consideration from respondent No,1 and predecessor of respondents Nos.2 to 6.
9. It is well settled principle of law that a mutation is not a document of title and it by itself does not confer any title, right or interest and burden of proof lies on the party who seeks to establish the genuineness of the transfer in his favour. Although records of rights are not instruments of title but unless rebutted, presumption of truth is attached to them.
10. In the present case the claim of the petitioners is that they are owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of Mutations Nos.3190 and 3191 and have paid due consideration. This claim was resisted by respondents on the ground that neither they nor their predecessor sold the suit property. Here the petitioners are required to strengthen the legal sale transaction in their favour to defeat the claim of the respondents being proved are:--
(1) Sale by seller petitioners.
(2) Fixation of sale consideration as well as receipt of sale consideration between the parties concerned.
(3) Delivery of possession of transferred property to the petitioners.
(4) Marginal witnesses.
11. Petitioners in order to prove their case produced four witnesses Haji Ahmed Din Khan SOK Abbottabad was examined as P.W.1. He produced Goshwara Malkiat of suit land from 1947-48 to 1980-81 as Exh.P.W.1/1 to Exh.P.W.1/6 while the copies of Mutation No, 3190 and Mutation No,3191 are Exh.P.W.1/7 and Exh.P.W.1/8. P.W.2 Abdur Razaq Patwari Halqa also produced revenue record as Exh.
P. W .2/ 1 to Exh. P. W .2/14 . According to revenue record the predecessor/ respondents have been recorded as owner in possession of the suit land. ,The subject mutation No,3190 dated 26-4-1961 Exh.P.W.1/7 was attested on behalf of defendant No,1 and predecessor of defendants Nos.2 to 6 in lieu of sale consideration of Rs,1500 for a land out of Khasra Nos. 2154 and 2125. The perusal of Mutation Exh.P.W.1/7 shows that it was not entered at the instance of vendors nor does it bear the signature of any one of the vendors. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that Mutation No,3190 was attested on, 26-4-1961, while the vendors were not present. He further admitted that Mutation No,3190 is neither signed nor thumb impressed by any vendor or marginal witness. He also confessed that Roznamcha Waqiati regarding Mutation No,3190 is not in his possession and Mutation No,3191 has been dismissed P.W.2 Patwari Halqa also admitted. {{URDU TEXT}} ' He also admitted {{URDU TEXT}}
12. Petitioner Shah Qasim who is also attorney for remaining petitioners was examined as P.W.3. He states that he purchased land from suit Khasras from Janat Bibi, Bazurag Shah, Muhammad Shah, Arshan Bibi and Qulsum Bibi to the extent of their share. That the land was mortgaged prior to sale for consideration of Rs,400 but subsequently he paid Rs,1100/ to the vendors. He also stated that the vendors recorded their statement before revenue officers in respect of both mutations but he neither disclosed the names of the revenue officers nor produced them in the Court in whose presence the vendors recorded their statement. In cross-examination he admitted, "I myself went to patwari Halqa and got entered the daily diary regarding suit mutations". He also did not know about the day, date, month and year in which disputed mutations were attested. He had no knowledge about the exact area of purchased land. He stated that he purchased suit land only from two Khasra numbers and that is five Kanals from each khasra numbers. He also admitted that the revenue officer did not obtain any signature or thumb impression of either party and that mutation No,3191 was dismissed on 3-3-1962.
13. To prove the execution of Mutation No, Exh. P. W.1/7 , petitioner produced Syed Ashiq Hussain as P.W.4. He is neither the witness of the deed nor he was present there at the time of execution of mutation. He only testified the presence of Sarwar Khan Lumberdar at the time of attestation of mutations. P.W.4 identified himself to be the lumberdar of village Mankari whereas the subject land is situated in Mauza Bhari Bandi whose lumberdar was Sarwar Khan. But neither the said Sarwar signed the mutation nor P.W. Testified that the said Sarwar signed the mutations in his presence.
P.W.4 also admitted that he never remained lumberdar of the village Bahari Bandi or Mankarai. He also admitted "I am not the marginal witness of the disputed mutation. I do not Know the names of the persons who are marginal witnesses of the suit mutation. Suit mutation was not signed by anybody as witness in my presence. I do not know the date and month in which suit mutation was brought for attestation. I do not know the name of patwari Halqa and Tehsildar before whom the mutation was attested."
14. There are also material contradiction in respect of payment of sale consideration in the statement of petitioners and P. W4 Syed Ashiq Hussain. Thus the factum of consent, sale, fixation of consideration as well as receipt of sale consideration between the parties concerned, marginal witnesses of mutation and extent of land attributed to the vendors with reference to suspect transaction vide Mutation No,3190 could not be proved by petitioners in accordance with law.
15. So far as the claim of the petitioners with reference to Mutation No,3091 Exh.P.W.2/8 is concerned, the said mutation on the face of it has neither been attested nor otherwise proved in accordance with law and the same had been dismissed on 3-34962.
16. Keeping in view the above noted circumstances both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit of the petitioners, therefore, the concurrent findings of both the Courts below in respect of factual controversy required no interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. This is settled law that the High Court in revisional jurisdiction cannot upset the concurrent finding of facts by means of reexamination of evidence and in the present case the perusal of record would not show any misreading or non-reading of evidence brought on record by the parties or suggest that the Court of first instance and the appellate Court had drawn wrong conclusion from the evidence calling for E :interference of the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
17. In the light of foregoing discussion I find no substance in the revision petition F and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.