' In this civil revision under section 115, C. P. C. Tehmas Khan defendant-petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree, dated 2-4-1984 of Mr. Muhammad Safdar Khan Additional District Judge, Charsadda vide which he dismissed the appeal of the defendant-petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 22-2-1983 of Mr. Muhammad Siddique Khattak, Civil Judge First Class, Charsadda whereby the plaintiff-respondent was granted a decree for possession of the land in suit.
2. Mst. Bastari plaintiff instituted a suit for possession of the suit land on the basis of ownership as a result of partition proceedings. The suit was contested by the defendant-petitioner which obliged the learned trial Judge to frame the following issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to sue?
(3) Whether the suit is incompetent in its present form?
(4) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the suit land after the partition?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit land? O. P. P.
(7) Relief.
' After recording the evidence of the parties as they wished to adduce the learned trial Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent and his appeal having been dismissed the defendant- petitioner has approached this Court in the instant civil revision petition.
3. Arguments for the parties were heard and record of the case examined.
4. The only question that fell for determination in this Court was whether the plaintiff-respondent has been able to prove her case with regard to her exclusive ownership over the suit land. The learned trial Judge in this judgment has believed the entries in the `Fard Jamabandi' Exh. PW 1/1 for the year 1971-72 which shows that the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land vide partition Mutation No, 6152 attested on 17-1-1973. Curiously enough, however, despite the fact that no copy of the mutation was placed on the record, just on the entries in the Tard Jamabandi' the learned trial Judge concluded that the plaintiff had been successful to prove her assertion that she was the owner of the land in question. Even if the plaintiff had placed on record copy of the mutation that by itself was not conclusive proof that plaintiff had proved her case with regard to her ownership over the suit land because this mutation was not acted upon in the Revenue record. It is well- settled that entries based on mutation proceedings are by itself no proof of title. In Jamsher and others v. Abdul Jalil and others (1), it was observed that mutation proceedings are not judicial proceedings, and do not decide title, and mutation by itself is no evidence of exclusion from property. Their Lordships went on to observe that:- "It is an error to suppose that the proceedings for the mutations of names are judicial proceedings in which the title to and the proprietary rights in immovable property are determined. They are nothing of the kind, as has been pointed out times innumerable by the
(1) PLD 1964 (W. P.) Pesh. 159 judicial Committee. They are much more in the nature of fiscal inquiries instituted in the interest of the State for the purpose of ascertaining which of the several claimants for the occupation of certain denominations of immovable property may be put into occupation of it with greater confidence that the revenue for it will be paid."
' Similarly in the P & T Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Karachi v. Ch. Manzoor Ahmad Shah (1), it was held that the mutation proceedings areB intended primarily for fiscal purposes for the collection of land revenues and they are by no means a judicial proceeding in which the right and title in the property is determined.
5. In the light of these observations the learned trial Judge erred in holding that the plaintiff had been able to prove her title over the suit land. I, therefore, accept this civil revision petition and remand the case to the learned trial Judge to bring on record evidence of the parties for and against with regard to the title over the suit property. Costs shall follow the event.
(1) PLD 1961 Kar. 53