S M ATTIQUE SHAH, J. The petitioners, through instant petition have challenged the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Swabi, whereby appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by maintaining the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Swabi.
2. The petitioners have sought a decree for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of suit property bearing khasra Nos. 1677, 1662, 1661, 1678. 1653, 1676, 1675, 1679, 1644, 1645 and 1645 (sic) khata Nos.525/1162 to 1165, 526/1166, 527/1167 to 1169 and 528/1170 as per register of rights for the year 1996-97 situated in Mauza "Chak Nodeh" on the basis of registered sale deed No.54 attested on 13.04.1928, which was purchased by the predecessor of petitioners/plaintiffs namely Badshah alias Bacha and; that after his death, the petitioners are owners in possession of the same; that entries of revenue record are wrong and liable to be corrected in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs. The petitioners have also challenged mutation No.436, registered deed No.124 attested on 28.11.2001, mutation No.912 attested on 09.03.2002, deed No.913 attested on 09.03.2002 and; the judgment and decree passed in Suit No.03/1 of 2002 and; prayed for its cancellation. The respondents/defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement; from the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed issues and; after recording pro and contra evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 06.12.2016 dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved from the ibid findings, the petitioners filed appeal before the Appellate Court and; vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.2018, the appeal was dismissed, hence, the instant Revision Petition.
3. Written arguments of the parties and; record perused.
4. Perusal of record reveals that petitioners claimed ownership and possession of suit property on the basis of registered sale deed No.54 attested on 13.04.1928, which was purchased by Badshah alias Bacha son of Muhammad Munir Khan, predecessor of petitioners, from the predecessors of respondents Nos.1 to 6 namely Zaril Khan and Amir Khan. In the ibid deed, Mirza Shah and others were shown as owners of property bearing khasra Nos.1319, 1320, 1321, 1323, 1386, 1388 and 1389; but the said entries were claimed to be wrong; rather, instead, the predecessor of respondents Nos.1 to 6 claimed the ownership of the said property while specifically denying the ownership of the said Mirza Shah and others in the ibid deed and; hence, alienated the entire property i.e. 90 kanals 18 marlas against sale consideration of Rs.2500/- in favour of predecessor of petitioners. Record further reveals that since 1928, neither the petitioners, nor the respondents Nos.1 to 6 ever challenged the alleged wrong entries so mentioned in ibid deed. Later, respondents Nos.9 to 69 transferred certain portion of the suit property in favour of respondent No.8 vide registered sale deed No.124 dated 28.11.2001. The respondent No.7 filed civil suit No.3/1 against respondent No.8, which was decreed in his favour on 12.01.2002. Nothing is available on record which could show that the predecessor of respondents Nos.9 to 69 ever transferred their property in favour of predecessor of petitioners or had received any sale consideration. Indeed, the predecessor of the petitioners was well within knowledge that predecessor of defendants/respondents Nos.1 to 6 was not recorded as owner of the property; but, still he purchased the same from him for reasons best known to him. As of now, it is well settled that a vendor cannot pass on to the vendee anything better than he himself holds. Therefore, it is the vendee who is to apply maximum care before entering into a transaction of sale. His right/title being dependent upon the strength or weakness of the title of the seller, he is to sail, swim and sink with the seller, and to pursue him for any loss suffered if he is ultimately the loser. 2010 SCMR 18 titled Muhammad Shamim through Legal Heirs v. Mst Nisar Fatima through Legal Heirs and others. Besides, being in knowledge that the property in question is the ownership of predecessor of respondents Nos.9 to 69; neither, their predecessor nor the petitioners had ever challenged the said entries till the year 2002; therefore, their suit at this belated stage is hopelessly barred by time and rightly so held by both the Courts below. The revenue record reflects that predecessor of respondents Nos.9 to 69 have been recorded as owner of the suit property even prior to the year 1928, which entries remained intact till the alienation of property in question in favour of respondents Nos.7 and 8 on behalf of the respondents Nos. 9 to 69 through registered sale deed No.124 in the year 2001, hence, the ibid alienation is legal and; thus, protected under the law. The petitioners could not point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned findings of the Courts below, which could warrant interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction, which is indeed very narrow and limited in its scope.
5. Resultantly, the instant Revision is dismissed; being dismissed.