1. ' The suit property measuring 38 Kanals and 16 marlas was a part of village Shamilat of village Achini Payan, District Peshawar. By registered sale-deed dated 22-1-1883 (Exh. P. W. 5/1), Latif Khan sold some of his proprietary land to Samand. However, it would appear that the revenue officer through mutation No, attested on 14-7-1887 transferred the Malkiyyat (proprietary land) of Latif Khan alongwith his share in the village Shamilat in favour of Samand as well as his two brothers, namely, Anand and Ghulam. The entry in the mutation found its way in the revenue record.
2. Chairagh Shah defendant-6 (herein appellant) purchased the share of one Zarghun. In the events that happened, respondents herein brought suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land which is a part of the village Shamilat in which they are co-sharers and that the revenue entries to the contrary are ineffective and not binding upon them. Their further prayer was that they are entitled to their share of compensation in the Shamilat land acquired in past and to be acquired in future.
3. ' The defendants contested the suit and upon the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Judge framed the necessary issues and recorded their evidence. On appraisal of the evidence, he granted decree in favour of the respondents as prayed, vide his judgment dated 26-6-1971. This judgment was impugned by defendant-Chiragh Shah in appeal before the District Court and a learned Additional District Judge who heard the appeal concurred in the findings of the learned trial Judge and dismissed the appeal, vide his judgment dated 15-1-1980. Hence this second appeal.
4. ' Before me the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the two Courts below were wrong to disregard the entries in the revenue record according to which the defendants were owners in possession of the suit land by purchase. It is further contended that the sale of the appellant was protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and the two Courts below have misapplied the provision of Saving of Shamilat Ordinance, 1959, in the present case.
5. According to him, on the basis of registered sale-deed (Exh. P. W. 1/5), Latif Khan had sold his entire ownership including his share in Shamilat, therefore, his submission is that the two Courts below were wrong in holding that the appellant was not bona fide purchaser. He also contended that in any case, the adverse title of the appellant to the suit land is established by long-standing entries in the revenue record which, according to him, shows that the respondents had acquiesced in the ownership of the appellant.
6. 'I have given my earnest consideration to the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, but I do not see any force in any one of them. The registered sale-deed (Exh. P. W. 1/5) is the basis of the whole matter for consideration. It is not material in the said documents that the vendor also sold his shares in the village Shamilat alongwith his Malkkiyat or proprietary land. The learned counsel for the appellant has laid emphasis on the word `Bakhra' mentioned in the Revenue record which, according to him, is a qualitative term to show that it includes the Shamilat land. This suggestion of the learned counsel has also not impressed me. Whatever entries exist in the revenue record about Shamilat land do not find mention in the registered sale-deed Exh. P. W.
7. 5/1 and as the registered sale-deed is a basic document in the present case, any entry in the revenue record beyond that document will have no legal basis and value. The term Shamilat is a striking term of import and significance. The word Shamilat cannot be ignored in any written transaction if the transaction is about the land in Shamilat. As the word Shamilat has not been specifically incorporated in the registered sale-deed, it can safely be presumed that the original vendor had not sold 'his share in the shamilat land and he had only sold his land of exclusive ownership through the registered sale-deed in question.
8. ' Now I turn to deal with the contention of the learned counsel that in any case the adverse title of the appellant with reference to the revenue record is to be looked into. I observe that this contention is not tenable in law in a case of this nature. The appellant was found to have not purchased the suit land and the entries in the revenue record in this behalf were wrong. Even otherwise, the learned counsel forgets that his adverse claim is about land in the village Shamilat and legally there would be no question of adverse claim or title to any part in the Shamilat land.
9. Thus the assertion of the learned counsel that in the present case the adverse title of appellant is to be considered in any case proceeds on lines not envisaged by law and his attempt in this behalf is an attempt in wilderness.
10. ' Having held that on the basis of registered sale-deed (Exh. P. W. 1/51, the original vendor had not sold the suit property or for that matter his share in the village Shamilat, the matter needs no further adjudication on any other point.
11. ' As a result, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.