AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this civil revision petition has challenged the judgment and decree dated 22-3-2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Muzaffargarh whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 19.11.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-petitioner on 13.3.1996 filed a suit for declaration that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property. He challenged mutation No. 2 attested on 14-1- 1986 for sale of suit land, fully described in the head-note of the plaint, in favour of defendants.
Written statement was filed. Suit was vehemently contested. Issues were framed. Learned trial Court invited the parties to produce their oral as well as documentary evidence. Both the parties produced their respective evidence. Learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.2001 dismissed the suit. Appeal was preferred which was also dismissed by the learned first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 22.3.2003. Hence, this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the alleged vendees/defendants were bound to prove the sale of the land, transaction, possession of the property and attestation of mutation, but they have failed to prove all the above ingredients, therefore, findings recorded by both the courts below are against the law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the matter that this revision is to be accepted and referred the statements of the witnesses to show discrepancies and with regard to limitation, refers section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908 to argue that when fraud has been committed, the benefit of section 18 was to be given to the plaintiff-petitioner, therefore, argues that the suit was within time.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argues that in the suit nowhere it has been pleaded in the body of the plaint that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property; that plaintiff-petitioner tried to produce PW-1 fraudulently showing him to be the witness of the impugned mutation whereas defendants-respondents have produced the original attesting witness of the impugned mutation as DW-3 and other witness has been produced as DW-2, who has fully proved the valid attestation of mutation. States that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below, therefore, no case for interference by this Court has been made out.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record with their able assistance.
6. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that in accordance with section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the petitioner was required to prove the transaction, attestation of mutation and passing of the consideration money. Though in this case the petitioner is required to first cross the hurdle of limitation, the argument of learned counsel for the, petitioner has no weight as after attestation of mutation same was duly incorporated in the Jama Bandi and according to the Jama Bandi/record of rights respondents-defendants were being recorded owner of the suit property since its transfer in their favour.
' It is correct that plaintiff has nowhere mentioned in the body of the plaint that he is in possession of the suit property. As per argument of learned counsel for the petitioner fraud has been committed by the defendants with the connivance of the revenue officials who entered and attested the mutation. I have noticed that if any person claims that any transaction is fraudulent, he is required to plead fraud specifically and prove the same by producing concrete, convincing and reliable evidence. The basic thing in the suit was that plaintiff was to satisfy on the point of limitation only then the principle of shifting of onus would have come into picture if valid filing of suit within the prescribed period of limitation was proved by the plaintiff-petitioner, therefore, important question in this case is of limitation when the mutation attested on 14.1.1986 has been challenged through a suit filed on 13.3.1996. When period of limitation provided under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 has been provided six years when the right to sue accrues and this suit has been filed more than four years after the prescribed period of limitation, therefore, plaintiff was required to plead grounds for exemption from limitation law in accordance with Order VII Rule 6 of C.P.C. Even I have noticed that no detailed pleadings with regard to commission offraud have been mentioned, which were necessary under the law and further no ground for exemption from limitation law has been pleaded in accordance with Order VII Rule 6 of the C.P.C., therefore, petitioner-plaintiff was not entitled for exemption from period of limitation. When both the courts below came to the conclusion that the suit has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, therefore, it is barred by law. The findings are in accordance with the evidence available on the file and in accordance with law. The argument with regard to application of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are also misconceived, as the same is not applicable in the rural area of Punjab. As vide Notification No. 15246-74/2237-LRV dated 30.12.1974 Government of Punjab making section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applicable in the Province of Punjab through Notification No. 3097-8/1511-LRIdated 22.11.1978 requirement of compulsory registration under section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 has been dispensed with vide above notification and compulsory registration has been restricted only to municipalities and notified areas as declared and notified under section 214 of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.
7. When there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below after complete and thorough examination of the evidence produced by the parties, this Court cannot substitute the same unless there is some misreading and non-reading of evidence or some procedural defect fatal to the case on the part of the courts below but no such misreading, non-reading or procedural defect has been highlighted nor I find the same in the findings recorded by the Courts below, therefore, in the light of judgments reported as PLD 1994 SC 291.
"Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah", PLD 1983 Lahore 687 "Mst. Rashida Hussain v.
Qazi Aslam Hussain and 8 others" and 2002 CLC 295 "Ghulam Muhammad v. Malik Abdur Rashid and 2 others", I am unable to disagree with the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below. No case for interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 115 of the C.P.C. Has been made out. This revision petition having no ID merit is hereby dismissed.