CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J. Through this civil revision, the petitioners have challenged the vires of judgment and decree dated 17.07.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Phalia who dismissed the suit for declaration filed by the petitioners and judgment and decree dated 07.02.2015 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Phalia District M.B. Din who dismissed the appeal of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts or the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration against the respondents/ defendants in respect of land measuring 02-Kanals 12-Marlas comprising Khewat No.157 Khatooni No.482, Square No.77, Killa No.1/1 as per Jamabandi for the years 1972-73 situated in Mouza Pindi Magho, Tehsil Phalia, District Mandi Bahauddin, contending therein that they are legal heirs of Gull Hussain Shah who was owner of the suit property which was inherited by the petitioners along with their mother Safia Begum who has died leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs. A registered exchange deed No.966 dated 12.04.1981 was executed by Mst. Safia Begum and petitioner/plaintiff No.1 Tazeeb Abbas in favour of Fateh Muhammad predecessor-in-interest of respondents/defendants Nos.1 and 2. As per registered deed land measuring 06- Kanals 06- Marlas comprising Square No.77 Killa No.1/1 and Square No.12 Killa No.1/1 was given to Fateh Muhammad whereas registered deed was later on got executed in the form of mutation. No. 1371 dated 23.08.1981. That in exchange deed Khasra No.12/1/1 was written and they did not transfer 19/40 share of Khasra No.77/1/1, to that extent registered exchange deed and subsequent mutation are illegal. Respondents/defendants appeared and filed contesting written statement. As per divergent contentions of the respective parties, the learned trial court framed issues, recorded pro and contra evidence and vide judgment and decree dated 17.07.2013 dismissed the suit for declaration filed by the petitioners. Petitioners, feeling dissatisfied, assailed the said judgment and decree through an appeal and the learned appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 07.02.2015 dismissed the said appeal. Hence, this civil revision.
3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at full length and gone through the record with their able assistance.
4. A registered exchange deed No.966 dated 12.04.1981 is an admitted document and in consequence of the said registered exchange deed, mutation No. 1371 dated 23.08.1981 was incorporated in the revenue record. It is settled law that admitted facts need not to be proved.
Reliance is placed on the case titled as Mst. Rehmat and others v. Mst. Zubaida Begum and others (2021 SCMR 1534). Respondents stated that possession was handed over by both parties of their exchange land and since that day they are in possession. Admittedly, registered exchange deed No.966 was executed on 12.04.1981 whereas the petitioners filed suit for declaration on 06.05.2009 after lapse of 28 years and 24-days whereas under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the maximum period for filing the suit for declaration is six years, as such the suit of the petitioners was barred by time and no convincing reason has been furnished for delayed filing of the suit. The suitors were under legal obligation to explain the delay of each and every day but no such convincing reasons of delay have been furnished to surmount the barrier of limitation in this regard, thus the non-furnishing of the explanation of delay disentitled the suitors for condonation of the delay. Reliance is placed on the case titled Agha Syed Mustaque Ali Shah v. Mst. Bibi Gul Jan and others (2016 SCMR 910), the relevant portion is as under; "17. The suit was also rightly found to be patently barred by limitation. The declaration sought was with regard to a purported gift, allegedly made on 10.04.1971. The suit, in terms of Article 120 of the Limitation Act, under which Article a suit for a declaration of the nature sought, falls, ought to have been filed within six years of the said gift deed, but was filed on 24.08.2010, after a lapse of more than, thirty eight years. Whereas the mutation sought to be cancelled has been effected on 11.04.1990, twenty years prior to the filing of the suit, although limitation for such relief also was/is six years from the date of the cause of action."
Furthermore, the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to bring on record any solid, concrete and trustworthy oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their assertions made in the plaint regarding Khasra No.77/1/1. As such the learned courts below rightly passed the impugned judgments and decrees and no illegality has been c committed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not pointed out any illegality or material irregularity, misreading and non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect. The concurrent findings of fact are against the petitioners which do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the case cited as Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469).
6. Forgoing of the view, this civil Revision missed being devoid of any marit.