IKRAMULLAH KHAN, J.---Through the instant revision petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 11/10/2011, rendered by learned Additional District Judge-II, Bannu, whereby the appeal filed by respondent-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 23-12- 2010 of the learned Civil Judge-IX, Bannu, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition-are that petitioner had instituted a Civil suit before the Senior Civil Judge, Bannu against respondents Nos.1 to 4 seeking declaration and perpetual-cummandatory injunction to the effect that plaintiff (here-in-after called petitioner) is owner and in possession of the suit property while respondent/defendant No,1 has got no concern with the suit property; that Ayub Khan and Aqeeb Khan predecessor-in-interest of petitioner, were owners of 193 kanals 11 marlas and 6 sersai in Katha No,487, Khasra No,237, total measuring 7098 kanals, situated in mauza Dogar Umerzai Tehsil and District Bannu, out of which they had sold 17 kanaIs 10 marlas to Malang Shah son of Shah Alam, predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.1, vide mutation No,8379 dated 23/6/1948; that wrong entries to the extent. Of 193 kanals, 11 marlas, 6 sersai, instead of 17 kanals 10 marlas, made in the revenue record since 1949-50 with collusion of revenue record, on behalf of respondent No, 1, till now are ineffective upon rights of the petitioner; that for correction of said wrong entries, petitioner approached official respondents but in vain, hence suit was instituted.
3. The respondents had contested the suit by filing his written statement, wherein they denied the claim of petitioner on legal and factual grounds. The learned trial Court framed as many as nine issues including the relief. Parties adduced their respective evidence, whereafter, the learned trial Court dismissed the petitioner's suit vide judgment and decree dated 23-12-2010. Aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, but the same was too dismissed vide impugned. Judgment dated 11.10.2011. Hence the instant Civil revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that both impugned judgments and decrees of learned courts below are illegal, against facts, available on record; that both learned courts below have fallen into an error while not considering the material documentary evidence of petitioner, meaning thereby that both the said judgments are the result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence; that findings of learned trial court in regard 'to issues Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 8 are based just on presumption and also in violation of Order XX, Rule 5 of the C.P.C., hence needs consideration by this court.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that the impugned Judgments and decrees have been delivered by competent Courts of law thereafter proper appraisal of evidence and appreciation of law could not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the record.
7. The record reveals that one Muhammad Ayub Khan son of Aqib Khan, through sale mutation No,8379 dated 23/06/1948, had transferred his whole share in khata No,487 (old) measuring 193 kanals 11 marla and 6 sersai to one Malang Shah son of Alam Shah. The total share of ownership of 'Muhammad Ayub, as calculated was 3/110 share, but some manipulation was made in the figure 3/110 which had been shown to be 3/1210, which does not tally with the other entries in the same mutation. As Muhammad Ayub had sold out whole of his share in khata No,487 which was 193 kanals, 11 marla and 6 sersai, therefore, it was correctly not only mentioned in the disputed mutation but also in the next Fard Jamabandi of the year 1948/1950. The contention of the learned counsel that Muhammad Ayub Khan had disposed of only 17 kanals and 10 marlas, is not supported by any documentary and other ocular, conceivable evidence. The respondents are shown to be in continuous possession of the suit property since the year, 1949 and no one on behalf of the vendor, had ever challenged these long standing entries, effected in record of right through mutation No.8379.
8. Presumption of truth is attached to Revenue record, prepared in accordance with law, which could not be discarded, unless proved otherwise by convincing and cogent evidence.
9. If a person has shown to be in enjoying possession of a land, the law of limitation, shall be given, very high consideration, in order to discourage frivolous kind of claims, brought there after and, beyond the stipulated period of time, as mentioned in Article 120 of the Limitation Act.
10. It is established principle of law also that documentary evidence could not be rebutted by bald oral evidence. Reliance be placed on the case titled "Evacuee Trust Property Board and others v.
Haji Ghulam Rasool Khokhar and others" (1990 SCM R 725).
11. The provision contained in Section 52 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, ordained that presumption is attached to the entries in the record of rights and periodical record, which read as,
52. Presumption in favour of entries in record of rights and periodical records:-- ' "Any entry made in a record of rights in accordance with the law for the time being in force, or in a periodical record in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the rules made there under, shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor"
12. The entries in record of rights, in regard to the suit property, since 1949, has not been challenged by the person, who had executed the suit mutation No,8379 in his life time while no any objection was ever, brought by him in regard to the possession of the suit land, held by the vendees since the year 1949, before any competent Revenue Authority or Civil Court. There is no any documentary proof that petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest had ever received or demanded any produce therefrom respondents in regard to the suit property, therefore, the execution of the suit mutation No, 8379 attested on 23/06/1948.
13. Reliance be placed in this regard on case titled "Hakim Khan v. Aurangzeb and another" (1979 SCM R 625) wherein it is held as; "The entries in jamabandi, as is obvious carried a statutory presumption of truth under section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (XV of 1887) and Section 52 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)"
14. It is to be noted that prior to promulgation of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 was enforced in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (then N.W.F.P).
15. Both the learned courts below have properly appreciated and appraised the facts of the case and have based their fair concurrent findings on solid, acceptable and conceivable evidence, which could not be disturbed by this court, in its revisional jurisdiction as no any illegality or irregularity was pointed out by the petitioner in the impugned judgments, rendered by courts of competent jurisdiction in that regard.
16. In "Muhammad Mian v. Shamimullah" (1995 SCM R 69), the apex court held that scope of revisional powers though lodged by conditions, is nevertheless vast and corresponds to a remedy of certiorari. As, there is clear and un-rebuttal, manipulation, made with mala fide and dishonest intention, in the suit mutation only for the purpose to create an artificial cause of action to avoid the bar of limitation, a frivolous suit has been brought by the petitioner, thereafter a lapse of more than 59 years, without any reasonable ground, deserve to be discouraged with burdening him with heavy cost. Therefore, this Revision petition is dismissed with cost through out.