MUHAMMAD FAHEEM WALI, J.---Through the instant petition under section 115, C.P.C, the petitioners have called in question the judgment and decree dated 29.4.2014 rendered by learned Additional District Judge-V, D.I. Khan vide which their appeal against the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2011 of learned Civil Judge-VII, D.I. Khan was dismissed with cost.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 brought a suit against the petitioners and proforma respondents for declaration-cum-perpetual mandatory injunction and in the alternative claimed possession of the suit land measuring 92 kanals and 11 marlas situated in Mouza Awan, Tehsil Paharpur, District D.I.Khan and sought correction of the revenue record pertaining to the land in dispute.
3. The suit was contested by the petitioners and proforma respondents by submitting their written statement, raising legal and factual pleas. The learned trial Court framed issues from the pleadings of the parties. The parties produced their respective evidence as they wished to adduce. After hearing arguments, the learned Civil Judge-VII, D.I. Khan decreed the suit of respondents Nos.1 to 4 vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.2011.
4. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2011, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge-V, D.I.Khan vide judgment and decree dated 29.4.2014, hence, the instant revision petition by the petitioners.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the available record with their able assistance.
6. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 brought the instant suit for correction of revenue record in respect of suit land measuring 92 kanals 11 marlas transferred through mutation No.29 dated 26.8.1965 in favour of petitioners and proforma respondents. The record depicts that the wrong entries started from mutation No.29 dated 26.8.1965, whereby the respondents Nos.1 to 4 were deprived of their right. On the basis of above mutation, in Khata No. 30 (83 kanals 01 marla), in Khata No. 31 (140 kanals 17 marlas) and in Khata No.65 (112 kanals 10 marlas) land was wrongly entered in favour of petitioners and proforma respondents, because respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are owners of land measuring 126 kanals while they have possession of only 32 kanals, therefore, it is clear that at the time of preparing record of rights for the year 1973-74 on the basis of mutation No.29 dated 26.8.1965, the petitioners and proforma respondents were granted land measuring 135 kanals 17 marlas instead of 43 kanals 06 marlas and in this way, the petitioners and proforma respondents have no concern whatsoever with the suit land measuring 92 kanals 11 marlas as the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are the rightful owners in possession of the suit land measuring 92 kanals 11 marlas. The record further transpires that on the basis of mutation No.29 mentioned above, mutation No.205 was attested on 28.12.1978 whereby suit land was transferred to Allah Dad, predecessor in interest of defendants Nos.7 to 14 and Ghulam Haider, predecessor in interest of defendants Nos. 15 to 18 and subsequently in favour of defendants Nos. 37 to 41 and 45 and on the basis of mutation No. 256 attested on 31.7.1983, the suit land was further transferred in favour of Mst. Bashiran, predecessor in interest of defendants Nos. 19 to 27, in favour of Ghulam Muhammad son of Haider defendant No.46 and through mutation No.391 dated 10.6.1989 from defendant No.46 in favour of defendants Nos. 42 to 44 and on the basis of mutation No.700 attested on 25.11.2000, from defendant No. 11 to defendants Nos. 47 to 49. It is also on record that possession of the suit property is with respondents Nos.1 to 4.
The above mentioned transcript of the facts clearly suggests that the wrong entry initially made in the revenue record about the actual ownership transferred through mutation No.29 got consistently repeated in each and every Jamabandi on account of the regular periodic transfer in ownership through the above mentioned mutations, right up to the year 2000, therefore, as far as objection of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the suit being filed beyond the period of limitation cannot be adhered to as aforementioned each subsequent wrong mutation as well as every entry in the subsequent Jamabandies could give fresh cause of action to respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to file the suit, thereby the time to file such suit would run from each Jamabandi and in the present case, the latest Jamabandi was for A the year 1998, the suit has been filed on 08.5.2003 and the limitation period provided for declaration is six years, therefore, the same when counted from the year 1998 makes the suit well within time. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the case of Abdul Sattar Khan and another v. Rafiq Khan and another (2000 SCMR 1574). Similarly, in the case of Khan Muhammad through L.Rs and others v. Mst. Khatoon Bibi and others (2017 SCMR 1476) it was held that:-- "In the cases of simple correction of revenue record, it is settled by now that every fresh wrong entry in the record of rights would provide fresh cause of action provided the party aggrieved is in possession of the property as owner needless to say that it can be either physical or symbolic possession".
7. In order to fully understand the controversy between the parties, contents of mutation No.29 are very much relevant. The order of the Revenue Officer is available on the back of the mutation, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that out of the disputed Khata No.30 measuring 336 kanals 08 marlas, a portion to the extent of 43 kanals 06 marlas was transferred to the defendants.
By necessary implication, it means that in suit land old Khata No.30 Khasra Nos.86, 144 and 125 comprised of total 336 kanals 08 marlas, defendants were entitled only to the extent of 43 kanals 06 marlas land on the basis of this mutation No.29. However, in the latter revenue record i.e. Jamabandi for the years 1978-79 to 2003 (Ex.P.W.1/1 to Ex.P.W.1/4), an area of 135 kanals 17 marlas was either wrongly or inadvertently transferred to the defendants/their predecessors.
Despite. searching through the entire record, I could not come across any document which could justify wrong entries so made in the Jamabandies for the years 1978-79 to 2002-2003 as the most important document in the event of official transfer of any property is the mutation concerned and the most important entry upon the mutation is the order of the Revenue Officer sanctioning the mutation and the contents of the order so made by the Revenue Officer is to be given utmost respect and importance. For the sake of arguments, if the contents of the order of the Revenue Officer are in conflict with any entry in the mutation, then the contents of the order would be considered gospel in relation to any other entry. In this view of the matter, the bare reading of the order of the Revenue Officer, sanctioning mutation, in categorical terms provides the transfer of property to the extent of 43 kanals 06 marlas in Khata No.30, then there is no reason to believe any wrong entry made in the subsequent Jamabandis in excess of the area other than the said 43 kanals 06 marlas.
Needless to reiterate that the defendants in their written statement as well as in the evidence / statement of DW-1, never contended that they are entitled to 135 kanals 17 marlas land on the basis of some other transaction or title other than the said mutation No.29.
Rather DW-1 has admitted sanctioning of mutation No.29 on the basis of compromise. However, instead of providing any justification for the excess of land beyond 43 kanals 06 marlas, they tried to take refuge behind the proposition that the property has not been permanently partitioned. This stance, as rightly figured out by the learned Courts below, is evasive and misleading, as by taking such stance, they could not justify the transfer of excess land of 92 kanals 11 marlas in their names which clearly appears to be an error on the part of revenue hierarchy, thus, causing deficiency in the ownership of Abdul Aziz etc (respondents Nos. 1 to 4 herein).
8. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear than crystal that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are rightful owners in possession of suit land measuring 92 kanals 11 marlas and they have proved their stance through cogent and reliable evidence. Both the learned Courts below rightly appreciated the material on record and arrived at just and lawful conclusions while decreeing the suit in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 4. The petitioners have not been able to make out a case for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
9. Even otherwise, concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below cannot be disturbed by revisional Court when it is established that such findings are on the whole reasonable and are not arrived at by disregarding any provision of law or any accepted principle concerning appreciation of evidence. In this respect, reliance is placed on the case of Alamgir Khan through L.
Rs and others v. Haji Abdul Sittar Khan and others (2009 SCMR 54). Likewise, in the case of Moulvi Muhammad A teem v. Alhaj Mehmood Khan Bangish and another (2010 SCMR 817) it was held that:- "It is also settled principle of law that findings on the question of fact or law, however, erroneous the same may be, recorded by any Court of competent jurisdiction, cannot he interfered with by the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. unless such finding suffers from jurisdictional defect, illegality, or material irregularity. "
10. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant petition being bereft of merits is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.