ATIR MAHMOOD, J.---This civil revision is directed against judgment and decree dated 04.05.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Sargodha who dismissed appeal of the petitioner and upheld judgment and decree dated 04.10.1999 passed by learned trial court whereby suit of the petitioner was dismissed.
' Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration regarding land measuring 18 kanals and 7 marlas bearing Khewat No,13 situated in village Bhiki Khurd Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha challenging mutation Nos.922, 928, 960, 1006, 1088 and 1096 sanctioned in favour of the respondents. The petitioner asserted that Monda and legal heirs of Maulu transferred the suit land in favour of plaintiff/petitioner and also delivered possession thereof in view of judgment and decree dated 26.09.1973. The plaintiff also asserted that the mutation No,898 was also entered on 24.09.1974 in pursuance of said decree but could not be sanctioned due to violation of Martial Law Regulation rather the said mutation was cancelled. The petitioner assailed the said order in appeal which was allowed and mutation No,930 dated 12.11.1985 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner but prior to sanctioning of the said mutation, Maulu and LRs as well as Munda transferred the land in dispute through various mutations in favour of Hayat, Sultan Ahmad and Muhammad Nawaz illegally and unlawfully.
3. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing written statement. Issues were framed.
Evidence led by the parties was recorded. Thereafter, learned trial court after hearing both sides dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.1999. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed by learned District Judge, Sargodha vide judgment and decree dated 04.05.2011. Hence this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that mutation No,930 was attested in view of decree dated 26.09.1973 which decree still holds the field, therefore, mutation No,930 could not be set aside; that since the sanction of mutations in favour of defendants are illegal, therefore, other mutations sanctioned on the basis of sale deeds are ineffective upon the rights of the petitioner but this fact of altogether ignored by learned courts below; that the statement made by PW-1 Ghulam Hussain Patwari supports version of the petitioner that mutation No,898 was incorporated in revenue record on 24.09.1974 but it could not be sanctioned due to MLR No,115; that the impugned judgments and decrees are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence; that learned courts below have committed serious illegalities while passing the impugned judgments and decrees which has caused serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner, therefore, this civil revision, learned counsel prays, be allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside and the suit of the petitioner be decreed as prayed for. He has relied upon the law laid down in cased titled Khalid Mahmood v. Anees Bibi and 2 others (PLD 2007 Lahore 626), Muhammad Ismail and others v. Roshan Ara Begum and others (PLD 2001 Lahore 28), Mst.
Tabassum Shaheen v. Mst. Uzma Rahat and others (2012 SCMR 983), Abdul Ahad and others v.
Roshan Din and 36 others (PLD 1979 SC 890) and Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Shaft and others (PLD 1971 SC 762).
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.6 to 8 have fully supported impugned judgments and decrees while controverting this civil revision. He contends that the suit filed by the petitioner was barred under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act; that the decree relied upon by the petitioner had never been part of the record as it was never produced in the evidence; that the respondents were not made party to the proceedings in the appeal filed by the petitioner before the revenue authorities; that the judgments of learned courts below are concurrent in nature which cannot be upset in revision jurisdiction as there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence. He has relied upon the dictums laid down in case reported as Sheikh Muhammad Ashraf v. Mst.
Bilqees Akhtar and 4 others (2000 YLR 408 Lahore); Muhammad Yar v. Mst. Iffat Sultana (2000 MLD 531 Lahore), Muhammad Sher and others v. Mst. Taj Meena and others (PLD 1996 Peshawar 6), Muhammad Saeed and others v. Muhammad Asif and others (2001 MLD 1861 Karachi),Mst. Perveen Akhtar and others v. Muhammad Hussain and others (2000 SCMR 1881) and Messrs Javed and Co. v. Messrs Daewoo Pakistan Motorway Services Ltd. Through Chief Executive (2000 CLC 1611 Lahore).
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner filed a suit claiming his title in the suit property on the basis of an entry made in jamabandi for the year 1969-70. He, however, averred that respondent-defendant No,1 and predecessor of respondents-defendants Nos.2 to 5 transferred the suit property in his name through a decree of the court dated 26.09.1973. According to Exh. P3, which is a copy of the Register of Record of Rights for the year 1973-74 the suit land was transferred in the name of the petitioner on the basis of decree of the court mentioned herein above but no such decree was ever produced before the courts below. Even, there are no proceedings of any court of law, on record, which could be said to have culminated into the decree. It is surprising that the petitioner claimed himself owner of the property on the basis of Jamaican for the year 1969-70 and at the same time, he asserted that the land was transferred to him through decree of the court in the year 1973. While appearing in the witness box as PW.2, the petitioner is silent as to how he became owner of the property in the year 1969-70. It is not his prayer in the suit that he be declared owner of the suit property on the basis of the decree dated 26.09.1973 passed in his favour (implemented through mutation No,898). Relevant portion of head note of the plaint as well as prayer clause are reproduced below: ' Headnote: {{URDU TEXT}}
8. It is noticed that the assertion made in the plaint was not proved through any oral or documentary evidence and whatever was asserted in the evidence was beyond the pleadings. It is now settled proposition of law that anything said in the evidence beyond the pleadings cannot be taken into consideration. The main thrust of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the suit property was transferred in his name. Through decree of the court dated 26.69.1973 which is still intact and never challenged by anyone. I am afraid that as noted above, no such decree or proceedings have ever been brought on record even though the same were denied by the other side in categorical term. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner lacks force which is accordingly repelled.
9. There is another aspect of the case that the suit as framed was not maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C. When claim of possession has not been made whereas the petitioner himself admitted that he is not in possession of the property. Further, PW.1 Ghulam Hussain Patwari Halqa admitted in clear words that the plaintiff is not in possession of the disputed property. In the said circumstances, there remains no doubt that the suit filed by the petitioner was defective from its very inception. Reliance is placed upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Hazrat Khan v. Amanullah Khan and others (1996 SCMR 1217).
10. Both the learned courts below have concurrently decided against the petitioner, particularly the appellate court has delivered a comprehensive and detailed judgment touching the entire evidence led by the parties. No misreading or non-reading of evidence is spelt out from the record.
As such, there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees of learned courts below in revision jurisdiction. This civil revision is without any substance, which is accordingly dismissed.