' Through this civil revision petitioner has challenged the judgment & decree dated 14.6.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lodhran whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment & decree dated 09.01.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge 1" Class, Lodhran whereby suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-petitioner on 12.2.2002 filed a suit for declaration wherein she challenged the sale Mutation No. 1836 attested on 10.2.2001 in favour of defendants who are her real brothers. The case of the petitioner that under the mutation of Inheritance No. 1827 attested on 10.2.2001 of her father she received 11 kanals 11 marlas of land which is suit land and defendants on the same day through the impugned Mutation No. 1836 got the said land transferred in their favour, therefore, she challenged the same through suit. Written statement was filed, suit was contested.
Learned trial Court framed the issues, invited the parties to produce their evidence. Both the parties produced their respective oral as well as documentary evidence. Learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 9.1.2007 dismissed the suit. Appeal was preferred, which also met the same fate.
Hence, this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that when plaintiff-petitioner appeared in the witness- box and made a statement on oath, before the Court, the onus to prove the valid transaction of sale as well as attestation of mutation shifted upon the vendees-defendants being beneficiaries.
States that they miserably failed to prove the event of sale as well as valid attestation of mutation, therefore, findings recorded by both the Courts below are not sustainable under the law. Prays for acceptance of the civil revision and setting aside the impugned judgments & decrees.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argues that a valid sale was made in favor of the defendants-respondents and there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below, therefore, states that it is not a case for interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the, CPC. Prays that this civil revision be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record as well as findings recorded by both the Courts below.
6. As in the narration of facts it is noted that petitioner-plaintiff received the suit property from her father through mutation of Inheritance No. 1827 attested on 10.2.2001, which has been produced as Exh.P.1 and on the same day through the impugned mutation, which is Mutation No. 1836, whole of the property received by the plaintiff-petitioner in inheritance i.e. 11 kanals 11 marlas has been shown to have been transferred in favor of defendants, who are real brothers of the plaintiff.
Admittedly, plaintiff lady is married one having five sons and a daughter and no reason is mentioned why she has sold the suit property received through inheritance. When the suit was to challenge oral mutation of sale in favor of defendants i.e. Real brothers of the plaintiff, it was their duty to plead specifically the event of struck of bargain of sale, payment of consideration, transfer of possession under the sale in their written statement and then to prove not only attestation of mutation in accordance with law by solid and convincing evidence but also the struck of bargain, payment of consideration and transfer of possession independent of attestation of mutation. Even at the time of cross-examination plaintiff when she appeared as PW-1 no question about the events of struck of bargain, presence of witnesses, payment of money and delivery of possession under the sale has been put to the plaintiff. There is no mention that what was the need for sale of the property to the plaintiff-petitioner and after receiving the consideration amount where she has used the same. It is not on the record that why she was selling the property when her husband and children are available. Further no independent advice was available to the petitioner-plaintiff who is admittedly an illiterate household lady. As defendants were the purchasers of the suit land, therefore, at least her husband or the major child, if any, should have been available at the time of alleged sale for giving her independent advice. As I have noted supra there is no specific pleading in the written statement with regard to the events of struck of bargain, witnesses before whom the bargain struck, payment of consideration, delivery of possession under the sale nor the same have been proved through the evidence by the defendants and even these important facts have not been put to the plaintiff when she appeared as PW-1, nor one of the defendants Muhammad Nawaz when appeared as DW-1 stated the said facts in the Court. In the documentary evidence, which is the basic document relied by the defendants, the Rapt No. 284 (Exh.D1) on the basis of which impugned mutation has been entered. This Rapt does not show payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) to the plaintiff at the time of entrance of this Rapt. Even the order of the revenue officer dated 10.2.2001 whereby the mutation has been attested, does not show payment of consideration before the revenue officer. In the pleading it is stated by the defendants that the consideration was received by the plaintiff before the "Khewatdaran" and revenue officer whereas it is not proved through the documentary evidence. Even the Patwari who entered and got attested the mutation appeared as DW-5, he in his statement in chief did not state that the money was paid in his presence but in the cross-examination stated that in his presence plaintiff received the consideration amount but his statement is not supported by the documentary evidence Exh.D.1.
7. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by both the Courts below are against the evidence available on the file as well as settled principles of law on the subject, same are not sustainable, therefore, I set aside the same. Resultant, this civil revision is allowed, judgments & decrees passed by both the Courts below are set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner stands decreed with costs through out.