' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 14-10-1970 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur, whereby he rejected the petitioner's appeal regarding mutation of 0-4-0 Annas share out of serial No, 291 of Deh Labano, Taluka Ghotki, District Sukkur.
2. The facts of the case are that the disputed land stood in the names of the following persons in the number Shumari of 1955-56-
(i) Umed Ali son of Mehwal 1
(ii) Mst. Gohar daughter of Mehwal 0-8-0
(iii) Mst. Izzat daugter of Mehwal
(iv) Gulzar son of Mehwal
(v) Nangar son of Norang 0-8-0 ' Umed Ali is alleged to have sold 0-8-0 (share out of the disputed serial No, 291 as per registered sale-deed, dated 25-6-159 to one Karim Bux in the sum of Rs, 1,000 vide entry No, 286 of V. F. VII-B.
This entry was mutated in record of rights on 3-12-1963 to the extent of 0-4-0 annas share only as Umed Ali held share to that extent according to the revenue record. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the mutation to the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur, which was rejected by him vide his order dated 11-3-1970 as the petitioner could not prove that the transaction was invalid. The petitioner then preferred a second appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur, which was also rejected in the impugned order on the same ground.
3. The respondent died during the proceedings and his heirs were impleaded as party in the case.
4. The petitioner and his counsel urged the following points :---
(i) The brother of the petitioner had not sold any land to the respondent and as her brother was dead she was his heir and the land be mutated in her favour.
(ii) The deceased Karim Bux had filed a Civil Suit No, 11 of 1963 in Sub-Civil Court, Ghotki against Umed Ali in respect of the disputed land and his suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Ghotki, vide his order dated 4-9-1963. His appeal was also dismissed by the District Judge, Sukkur, vide his order dated 9-11-1963. He should have sought further remedy in the High Court and no revision or appeal could, therefore, lie on the revenue side in respect of the same matter.
(iii) Sale-deed was merely an agreement for sale and had not actually been executed by Umed Ali.
(iv) The two ladies viz.' Mst. Izzat and Gohar were sisters of Umed Ali and they were entitled to inheritance in the property left be deceased Mehwal, as is evident from the photikhatabadal of deceased Gulzar whose share has been mutated in favour of Umed Ali, Mst. Gohar and Mst. Izzat in 1958.
5. Mst. Khanul wlo the respondent urged the following points :-
(i) Umed Ali had sold 0-8-0 share in the serial No, to Karim Bux by a registered sale-deed, dated 25-6-1959 and there was no fraud in the transaction. Actually Umed Ali had sold 0-8-0 share in the Serial No, to Karim Bux but the revenue record had been mutated to the extent of 0-4-0 share only and the share of the petitioner was in tact and she had, therefore, no cause for grievance. It was injustice as they were being allowed only 0-4-0 share from the Serial No, as against 0-8-0 purchased by them.
(ii) According to entries in revenue record existing at the time of purchase of the land by the respondent. Umed All had 0-8-0 share in the disputed land and the names of two sisters had been subsequently interpolated in the record without any authority.
6. According to entries in V. F. VI in respect of Serial No, 291 for the year 1935-36, the names of the Khatedars are shown as below :-
(a) Umed Ali son of Mehwal ... 0-4-0
(b) Gulzar son of Mehwal ... 0-4-0
(c) Nangar son of Naurang ... 0-8-0
7. According to the entries for the year 1955-56 in the number Shumari, the Serial No, is entered in the names of the following persons :-
(a) Umed All
(b) Mst. Gohar
(c) Mst. Izzat
(d) Gulzar 1
(e) Nangar son of Naurang J 0-8-0 ' Neither any authority has been quoted in the number Shumari nor any was shown to me as to how the names of the ladies, which did exist in 1935-36 found place in the record in 1955-56.
Besides, the individual shares of each sharer had also not been shown. '
8. According to entry No, 285, dated 3-12-1963 of V. F. VII regarding Photikhatabadal of Gulzar, the share of deceassed GUlzar in the S. Nos. Was shown as 0-2-8 vide Column 6 of the register but there is no authority under which his share had been worked out. The share inherited by Umed Ali, Mst. Gohar and Mst. Izzat was also not shown in the entry but according to entry in V. F. VI for the year 1962-63, the shares of the Khatedars were shown as under :
(a) Umed Ali son of Mehwal 0-4-0
(h) Mst. Gohar daughter of Mehwal 0-2-0
(c) Mst. Izzat daughter of Mehwal 0-2-0 ' Nangar son of Naurang 0-8-0 ' It remained to be explained as to how the shares were worked out and carried forward in V. F. VI in absence of the respective shares having been determined by a competent authority in V. F. VII.
9. Umed All is stated to have sold 0-8-0 share in the Serial No, vide a registered sale-deed, dated 25-6-1959 to Karim Bux but according to entry No, 286, dated 3-12-1963 in V. F. VII, mutation had been recorded in respect of 0-4-3 share only.
10. A detailed enquiry was also conducted by the Deputy Collector, Ghotki and he has submitted his report indicating the following points :-
(a) Umed Ali and Gulzar each had 0-4-0 share in the Serial No, according to number-Shumari for the years from 1926-27 to 1935.36 and names of 2 ladies Mst. Izzat and Gohar were interpolated afterwards in the number-Shumari for the year, 1955-56 without any authority and that Munshi Muhammad Yousuf Makhdoom, Tapedar was responsible for this.
(b) Entry No, 285, dated 3-12-1963 showing that Gulzar had 0-2-8 share in the land was also not correct and that Munshi Muhammad Yousuf Makhdoom Tapedar and Mr. Abdul Hamed Chahwan, Head Munshi were responsible for this.
' In fact the share of Umed Ali after Photikhatabadai of Gulz,ar should have been shown as 0-6-0 (0-4-0 his own 0-2-0 inherited from deceased (Gulzar) and both the ladies Mst. Gohar and Izzat should have taken 0-2-0 share (0-1-0 share each).
1 I. I have considered the case and seen the record. The entries in number Shunaari for the year, 1955-56 showing the 2 ladies as sharers in the land are unauthentic and cannot be relied upon.
Accordingly, the entry in respect of the disputed S. No, which continued from the years 1926-27 to 1935-36 showing Umed Ali and Gulzar having 0-4-0 share each, would still hold good.
12. The petitioner is aggrieved by entry No, 286, dated 3-12-1963 in V. F. VII whereby 0.4-0 share from the S. No, had been mutated in favour of Karim Bux and contends that even this share should not have been mutated in the record. The alienation is by registered sale-deed according to which Umed All had sold 0-8-0 share from the S. No, to Karim Bux for a sum of Rs, 1,000. The perusal of the deed shows that it was a deed of absolute sale. According to revenue record, Umed Ali had atleast share of 0-4-0 in the S. No, in his own name, and only this much area has been B mutated in favour of Karim Bux vide entry No, 286, dated 3-12-1963. The name of the petitioner did not exist in the revenue record originally and the subsequent interpolation in the record showing the names of the ladies as sharers in the land is not authentic and no benefit can accrue to the petitioner on account of the entry. On the other hand, Gulzar died before the, disputed alienation. According to Photikhatabadal of deceased Gulzar, Umed Ali was entitled to half share i. e. 0-2-0 share in the area left by Gulzar and accordingly the total share of Umed Ali in the disputed S. No, after death of Gulzar should have been 0-6-0 and this share could be mutated in favour of Karim Bux on the basis of registered sale-deed. In any case, the petitioner has no cause for grievance against the mutation entry No, 286, dated 3-12-1963 whereby only 0-4-0 share from the disputed S. No, was mutated in favour of Karim Bux.
13. I have also seen the copy of the plaint filed by Karim Bux in the civil Court, Ghotki in respect of the same alienation but the suit was subsequently withdrawn by him vide his statement referred to in the order, dated 4-9-1963 of the Civil Judge, Ghotki. The copy of the withdrawal statement of Karim Bux has not been produced by the petitioner before me. The suit was filed by the respondent and was withdrawn by him. No order/decree for or against the respondent had been passed by the Court and there is no contravention against any order of the Court if the Revenue authorities have mutated the Khatas on the basis of the registered deed in the revenue record.
14. In view of the above, there is no merit in the Revision petition, which is, therefore, dismissed,
15. Lastly, I am unhappy to see the state of revenue record in this case. There was clear interpolation in the number Shumari for the year, 1955-56 showing the names of ladies as sharers in the land but this interpolation did not attract the attention of any one at lower levels so much so that even the Photikhatabadal of deceased Gulzar was decided on the interpolated entries. The lack of interest in and supervision over the work at lower levels has facilitated such interpolations and this state of affairs is very much undesirable. The Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur, should look into this and take appropriate action against those responsible for the incorrect entries in the record.
16. The parties may be informed accordingly.