RASAAL HASAN SYED, J.---This civil revision arises from judgmen ts and decrees dated 17.4.2019 and 06.2.2020 whereby suit for declaration by legal heirs of Mst. Bakho daughter of Muhammad Bakhsh filed against the petitioners was decreed by the trial Court and appeal thereagainst was dismissed by learned Addl. District Judge-I, Karor District Layyah.
2. Facts as will be relevant and material for the decision of this case are that civil suit was instituted for declaration to the effect that Mst. Bakho daughter of Muhammad Bakhsh was owner of suit property of which she was illegally deprived through fraud and tampering of revenue record. It was, claimed that in the Misal Haqiat for the year 1990- 91 the name of Mst. Bakho daughter of Muhammad Bakhsh was correctly reflected but by overwriting and tampering of the entries and commission of fraud, the parentage of Mst. Bakho was changed in the Pert Patwar so as to reflect her as Mst. Bakho daughte r of Allah Bakhsh and that fraudulently the land was transferred vide Mutation No.64 dated 29.2.1996 in favour of the petitioners/ defendants. It was added that the respondents/plaintif fs acquired knowledge of fraud when the payment of share of produce was declined and on probe into the matter , the fraud came to their knowledge. The defendants Nos.1 and 2 in the suit did not enter appearance and were proceeded against ex parte while petitioners/defendants Nos.3 and 4 contested the suit. The learned trial court framed issues, recorded evidence, and, thereafter decreed the suit vide judgment dated 17.4.2019 concluding that the entries in the Pert Patwar were tampered with fraud and that disputed mutation was legally untenable. Feeling aggrieved thereof the petitioners went in appeal which too, was dismissed by learned Addl. District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 06.2.2020.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that findings are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence on record; the provisions of Order XX, Rule 5, C.P.C, and Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C., were not complied with and that the subsequent entries in the revenue record supported the petitioners' stance; the petitioners were bona-fide purchasers and were duly protected and that suit was not within time and also that it was barred by the provisions of section 172 of the Land Revenue Act.
4. Due consideration of the documents annexed with this petition reveals that none of the points raised by the learned counsel has any legal substance. The case of the respondents/ plaintif fs was that their predecessor-in- interest Mst. Bakho daughter of Muhamm ad Bakhsh was the real owner; her name was duly reflected in the Pert Sarkar for the year 1990-91 as Mst. Bakh o daughter of Muhammad Bakhsh but in the disputed Pert Patwar for that year by tampering and overwriting, fraudulent entries were made to reflect her name as Mst. Bakho daughter of Allah Bakhsh and by doing so the land was transferred vide mutation No.64 dated 29.2.1996, which was a product of fraud.
5. Oral as well as documentary evidence was adduced by both sides. The learned courts below on indepth examination and consideration of the documents and other evidence concluded that tampering, cutting and overwriting, were made in the Pert Patwar while there was no such cutting in the Pert Sarkar . It was observed that the owner's name i.e. Mst. Bakho daughter of Muhammad Bakhsh was clearly reflected in the Pert Sarkar but by cutting, overwriting and tampering, the father's name of Mst. Bakho was changed in the Pert Patwar . One of the most important factors which was noted by the learned court below was that in Exh.P1, the Pert Patwar , names of other owners were also mentioned who were the legal heirs of Muhammad Bakhsh and their father's name was correctly reflected as Muhammad Bakhsh but in case of Mst. Bakho, her father's name was interpolated as Allah Bakhsh through overwriting, which made it manifest that fraudulent changes in the revenue record had been made.
The change and cutting was duly belied by the entries in the corresponding Pert Sarkar which had preferential evidentiary value and in which Mst. Bakho was clearly shown as daughter of Muhammad Bakhsh along with other legal heirs. The reason that prevailed for declaring the entries as illegal was that the petitioners claimed to have purchased the property from one Mst. Bakho daughter of Allah Bakhsh and if she was a different lady, then she would have been produced in evidence as the petitioners were under obligation to prove the alleged purchase in their favour .
6. Perusal of the file reveals that the findings recorded by the courts below do not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of evidence and that it was correctly observed that the cutting, interpolation and changes were made in the entries of Pert Patwar in connivan ce with the revenue staff for the purpos e of fraud depriving Mst. Bakho daughter of Muhammad Bakhsh from her legally owned property . In the course of hearing this petition learned counsel for petitioners could not point out any specific misreading or non-reading by the learned court below but made general assertions without any specific reference. Be that as it may, on careful scrutiny of evidence annexed with this petition, it is Observed that the view taken by the court below is based on correct analysis of evidence on record and that the overwriting' and tampering in Pert Patwar was obvious and as such the document could not sustain in view of the correct entries in Misal Haqiat/Pert Sarkar .
7. It cannot be ignored that if the petitioners have claimed that real name of owner was Mst. Bakho daughter of Allah Bakhsh, it was for them to prove that Mst, Bakho daughter of Allah Bakhsh was a different person from whom they allegedly derived the title. Being the beneficiaries of the alleged and impugned mutation, it was their duty to produce the vendor from whom they allegedly purchased the land. It was not their case that they purchased the land from Mst. Bakho daughter of Muhammad Bakhsh; instead their stance was that correct name of Mst. Bakho was Mst. Bakho daughter of Allah Bakhsh. The alleged vendor having not been produced, the obvious presumption will weigh heavily against the petitioner s. Even otherwise, the petitioners claim ed to be beneficiaries of the fraudulent entries and subsequent mutation, as such, the onus was on them to prove the sale in their favour through legal and admissible evidence in which enterprise they miserably failed. In result the court below rightly concluded that not only the entry in the Pert Patwar was proved to be result of fraud and interpolation but also that the petitioners could not prove any bona fide sale in their favor . It is settled rule that a person aggrieved of the entries in the revenue record, if impugns the same on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation and interpolation claiming that the title still vested in his favour , such question could not effectively be determined in summary proceedings before the revenue officer and that the civil court instead will have jurisdiction to adjudicate the question of title. Reference may be made to "Waris Khan and 18 others v. Col. Humayoun Shah and 41 others" (PLD 1994 SC 336) and "Mst. Mir Jan and 5 others v. Ghulam Nabi" (1993 SCMR 2334 ) wherein it was observed by the apex Court to the effect that if a person considers himse lf aggrieved of any entry in the revenue record, he may institute a suit for declaration of his right and the jurisdic tion of the civil court will not be ousted to call the correctness of the entries of the revenue record into question or for declaration qua title.
8. In the instant case serious allegations of fraud were raised in the plaint wherein the respondents claimed that by tampering the Pert Patwar fraudulent entry was made in respect of the name of father of Mst. Bakho to illegally deprive her of land and that she had never divested herself of title and ownership rights or any other rights qua the suit property and further that no sale had ever taken place and that the allegations being serious in nature, factual inquiry was required for determination. Being so, the civil court had the jurisdiction and such determination could not be left for the decision of the revenue officer in summary proceedings. The learned courts below , therefore, rightly repelled the objection of the petitioner in respect of maintainability of the suit.
9. As to the objection that the relief of possession could not be given, it is settled rule that a suit for declaration could not be dismissed outright if relief of possession has not been claimed in case the Court determines that there is a valid claim. At reaching the conclusion that the plaintif fs have proved their case and were entitled to relief, it could allow amendment in the plaint and direct payment of court fee. Reference may be made to "Ahmad Din v.
Muhammad Shafi and others" (PLD 1971 SC 762 ).
10. Being so, the learned courts below committed no error of law in granting relief. As to the question raised by learned counsel, it may be observed that the entries in the relevant record were challenged on the ground of fraud and concurrent findings of both courts below are that interpolation, cutting and changes in the record were made illegally to deprive the legal owner of her right in the suit property . It is settled rule that fraud vitiates even the most solemn of transactions and the court cannot knowingly endorse the fraud once it is proved to have been committed and also if the transaction is found to be the progeny of misrepresentation, the same could not be protected on grounds of limitation. In the case "Muhammad Yaqoob v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others" PLD 2020 SC 338), it was observed by the honourable Supreme Court that each entry in the revenue record gives rise to a fresh cause of action to an aggrieved person and that if adverse entries were remitted to Unchallenged, this does not have the effect of extinguishment of the right of the concerned party and further that any transaction/document which is result of fraud or misrepresentation could neither be purified nor give protection on ground of limitation whenever the transaction is assailed in the court of appeal. In the instant case the findings are to the effect that by fraud, cutting and interpolation, alteration in the Pert Patwar was made and that the respondents/plaintif fs instituted the suit on acquiring the knowIedge of adverse entries which was well within time. The findings, as such, recorded by the courts below do not suf fer from any error law .
11. Regarding objection of non-compliance of provisions of Rule 5 of Order XX, C.P.C. or Rule 31 of Order XLI, C.P.C., it is observed that the learned civil court decided all the material issues which were sufficient and necessary for the decision of the suit while the learned appellate court considered all the points raised before the court and recorded findings on the same with solid reasons. The requirement of the rule is that the court shall attend to the points raised, record its findings with reasons on all the questions raised before the court and that the judgment shall reflect judicial application of mind to the material issues involved. Bare readi ng of the two judgments and the findings recorded by the learned courts below leaves no doubt that each and every material fact was duly considered and the objections were repelled by recording- cogent reasons and considering the entire evidence on record; the objection raised, therefore, is totally misconceived.
12. For the reasons above, there is no substance in the revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.