1. ' The petitioner herein brought suit seeking declaration to the following effect :-
(a) He is co-owner of land measuring 8 kanals 2i marlas and mortgagee of land measuring 1 kanal and 1-2/3 marlas through exchange mutation 6664 attested on 18-8-1958 with defendant No, 2 and the same is in his possession and the registered deed executed by Naira (the predecessor of defendants Nos. 3 to 9) in favour of defendant No, 1, namely, Haji Akbar (respondent No, 1 herein) transferring the latter land in excess of his share is illegal and inoperative against his right.
(b) In the alternative he sought cancellation of the exchange mutations and restoration of the original position.
2. ' Only respondent No, 1 contested the suit. The learned trial Judge framed various issues and recorded evidence of the parties thereupon. On appraisal of the evidence he preferred the evidence of the petitioner and granted relief to him at `b,' above. Respondent No, 1 was aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Judge, therefore, he filed appeal in the District Court and a learned Additional District' Judge who heard the appeal accepted the same on the ground that the suit of the petitioner was barred by limitation, vide his order, dated 22-9-1980. Hence this revision application.
3. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The case of the petitioner is that he, Naira and Ismail exchanged their land with defendant No, 2 and mutations Nos. 6661 and 6664 were attested in this behalf on 18-8-1958. Before exchange he owed land 8 kanals and 12 marlas, Naira 2 kanals and 3 marlas and IsmaiV2 kanals and 3 marlas and after exchange in lieu of the above land 6 kanals and 10 marlas came to him as owner and 17-1/3 marlas as mortgagee, Naira got 1 kanal 12 marlas as owner and 4-1/3 marlas as mortgagee and Ismail 1 kanal 12 marlas as owner and 4-1/3 marlas as mortgagee. Meanwhile Ismail died and his inheritance devolved upon him and defendants Nos. 10 to 13. Defendants Nos. 10 to 13 also sold their shares to him and thus he became owner of 8 kanals and 2 marlas and mortgagee of 1 kanal and 1-2/3 marlas. His grievance is that although Fard-e-Bader was duly drawn in respect of the exchange transaction but yet due to collusion of Naira the exchange transaction was not correctly incorporated in the revenue record and as a result. Naira was shown owner of 2 kanals and 6 marlas instead of 1 kanal and 10 marlas. Thus Naira taking undue advantage of the entries in the revenue record sold land measuring 2 kanals and 6 marlas in excess of his due share through a registered sale-deed on 23- 6-1972 to respondent No, 1 and Mutation No, 8593 dated 25-7-1972 was attested in this behalf.
4. ' The learned trial Judge while granting relief to the petitioner referred to the admission of defendant No, 2 in cross-examination 40 the effect that he had agreed at the time of exchange transaction that if there was any interference from the other co-sharers, he would be responsible in that behalf. He, therefore, observed that where possessory rights are exchanged for ownership, none of the parties is precluded from seeking cancellation of the exchange transaction, not executed on equal footing. The learned. Additional District Judge was not impressed by this view of the learned Civil Judge and straightaway dismissed the suit of the petitioner on the ground of limitation.
5. ' Before me it is not disputed that Naira (the predecessor of respondents Nos. 3 to 9) had sold land in excess of that which fell to his share in the exchange transaction. I have given my earnest consideration to the legal position obtaining in the present case but I have not peen able to agree with the learned Additional District Judge in a case of this nature,' that the suit of the petitioner should be dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is a matter of record that the petitioner, Naira and Ismail had got joint possession of the land in exchange transaction through one Mutation No, 6664 attested on 18-8-1958. Thus these three persons were co-sharers in the land jointly transferred to them in exchange. It is conceded that after exchange transaction no partition took place between the co-sharers. I observe that there can be no cavil with the proposition that the ownership of every co-sharer will be his due share in the joint land and no co-sharer can transfer area beyond his due share in the joint land. I, therefore, hold that the entries in the revenue record by which Naira was shown in excess of his due share were wrong and were not binding upon the other co-sharers.
6. Now the question for examination is as to what course would be just and fair for the resolution of the dispute between the parties. In other words, whether it would be in the ends of justice to grant relief to the petitioner sought by him at (a) or that sought by him at (b) above. Now it is not disputed that Naira sold land in excess of his share to respondent No, 1 and as legally he could sell land to the extent of his share, the excess land sold by him will go to the petitioner so that he should get his rightful share, namely, 8 kanals and 2 marlas as owner and 1 kanal and 1-2/3 marlas as mortgagee. It is also not disputed that as a result of the exchange transaction, Naira became owner of 1 kanal and 12 marlas and mortgagee of 4-1/3 mar/as. Thus respondent No, 1 would be entitled to get 1 kanal and 12 marlas as owner and 4-1/3 marlas as mortgagee out of the land sold in his favour by Naira.
7. ' As a result, this revision application is disposed of in terms indicated above with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.