' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--Through this civil revision petitioner-plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2002 passed by learned District Judge, Lodhran whereby appeal filed by the respondents-defendants was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Duniya Pur decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner was reversed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.11.1998 plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration that she is owner in possession of the suit property mentioned in the head-note of the plaint and challenged mutation of exchange No, 87 attested on 04.12.1969 on the ground that it is forged and based upon fraud and some other woman was produced before the revenue authorities at the time of its attestation instead of plaintiff and subsequent mutation of exchange i,e, No, 96 attested on 26.5.1970 as well as mutation No, 328 attested on 26.2.1991 and mutation No, 329 of subsequent transfers were also challenged. It is the case of the plaintiff that in a litigation with her brother, plaintiff-petitioner appointed Allah Bachaya as her special attorney for pursuing the suit of the plaintiff against her brother but said attorney fraudulently got executed and registered a general power of attorney on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner. Defendants filed joint written statement. The suit was contested. Case of defendant No, 1 that exchange mutation is valid one and the other defendants stated that they are bona fide transferees of the suit land in their favour. Issues were framed. Parties were invited to produce their evidence. Both the parties produced their respective oral as well as documentary evidence. Vide judgment and decree dated 08,07.2002 learned trial court decreed the suit. Appeal was preferred and the learned first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 07.11.2002 accepted the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. Hence, this civil revision by the plaintiff-petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that plaintiff when appeared in the witness-box and has denied from attestation of the impugned mutation, the onus shifted upon the other side and the other side failed to prove the valid attestation of the mutation, therefore, findings recorded by the learned first appellate court are not sustainable under the law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No, 1 argues that it is pleaded in Para 2 of the plaint that mutation is result of connivance between defendant No, 1, Allah Bachaya, her attorney and revenue officials. Further argues that in Para 3 of the plaint she has admitted that Allah Bachaya was her attorney though it is denied that he was a general attorney. Further by referring Exh.P.1 the impugned mutation No, 87 states that in Column No, 12 it is mentioned that this exchange is in consideration of exchange of land in favour of plaintiff-petitioner from Chak No, 15/F, Tehsil and District Multan and states that plaintiff-petitioner herself produced Exh.P2 mutation No, 63 through which defendant No, 1 transferred the land measuring 56 kanals 18 marlas in favour of plaintiff-petitioner and in Column No, 12 of this mutation it is mentioned that this transfer is in consideration of mutation No, 87 attested on 4.12.1969 of exchange, which is impugned mutation in the suit. Further argues that the plaintiff-petitioner transferred the land received through mutation No, 63 through mutation No, 67 in favour of Mst. Rehmto etc through her general attorney Allah Baehaya. Further argues that certified copy of general power of attorney has been produced as Exh.P.4 in which it is mentioned that plaintiff is owner of land in Chak No, 15/F Tehsil Multan. Argues that this power of attorney was given to the attorney vide general power of attorney registered on 23.1.1970, therefore, argues that the story narrated in the plaint is absolutely wrong and was sufficient to non-suit the plaintiff-petitioner.
' Further that plaintiff has nowhere stated in her statement when appeared as PW-1 that she, is "Pardah Nasheen" lady. States that suit was clearly barred by time and further "Khasra Girdawri" produced by the defendants-respondents fully proved the possession of the defendants as owner of the suit property. Learned counsels for the other respondents have adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondent No, 1.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record with their able assistance.
6. I agree with the argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that when a mutation or transaction of transfer of immovable property by the plaintiff is challenged by plaintiff herself/ himself through a suit and plaintiff appears as her/his own witness and makes a statement on oath that she/he never transferred the property through any means and challenges the instrument of transfer, the onus shifts upon the other party as the beneficiary has to prove through positive evidence, valid transaction or instrument in its favour, as the plaintiff cannot prove the negative but this principle comes in the field when there is no technical or legal hurdle in proceeding of the suit.
When the suit in hand has been filed on 27.11.1998 to challenge the transaction of exchange through mutation No, 87 attested on 4.12.1969 i,e, 29 years after the attestation of the mutation whereas limitation for filing a suit for declaration under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is six years when the right to sue accrues, the plaintiff was required to cross the hurdle of limitation and when there is no hurdle in proceeding the suit then the plea pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner that after recording statement of the plaintiff on oath the burden shifts upon the beneficiary of the transaction. In this case it is admitted that Allah Bachaya was appointed attorney of the plaintiff through registered power of attorney Exh.P.4 which was registered on 23.01.1970 though the case of the plaintiff is that a special power of attorney was given to Allah Bachaya but he got the same registered as general power of attorney. In the said power of attorney there is mention of ownership of land of the plaintiff-petitioner in Chak No, 15/F Tehsil Multan, no other property except got through the impugned mutation of exchange by the plaintiff is in the ownership of the plaintiff in Chak No, 15/F, Tehsil Multan. Further through Exh.P.3 the plaintiff transferred the property received in exchange of the impugned property in favour of Mst. Rahmato through mutation No, 67 attested on 21.5.1970 through her said attorney namely Allah Bachaya. There is an "Abtaal Nama" registered on 25.5.1970 of the general power of attorney (Exh.P.4) on the record which has been produced by the defendants as Exh.D.5. Through this "Abtaal Nama" plaintiff-petitioner has admitted the execution of general power of attorney (Exh.P4) and therefore, got the same cancelled (Abtaal) through this registered "Abtaal Nama".
7. One more circumstance is against the petitioner-plaintiff. Plaintiff in cross-examination admitted that Ghous Ahmad is her husband who was admittedly Lumberdar and identified the parties as Lumberdar on the mutation Exh.P.6 and Exh.P.7 which relate to the subsequent transfer of the suit property in favour of defendants. Copies of Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawri produced as Exh.D.1 to Exh.D.4 confirmed that the mutation was incorporated in the revenue record and cultivating possession of defendants as owner has been shown in the Khasra Girdawri.
8. In these circumstances, the suit was barred by time. When the plaintiff failed to cross the hurdle of limitation though there is no need to further dilate upon the matter but the cross-examination upon the plaintiff and admissions of the plaintiffs are further against her case.
9. In view of above, I am unable to disagree with the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court. Resultantly, this civil revision being devoid of any force stands dismissed.