Maqbul Ahmad Sheikh, (Member). -The brief facts leading to this revision are that the application hied for the restitution of 29 kanals and 10 marlas of land mortgaged by the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners with the predecessor-in-interest of the respondeat was accepted by the AC/Collector, Pindigheb with orders of restitution in favour of the petitioners. These orders were, however, reversed in appeal by the leamed Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi, vide judgment dated 6-7-1981, now assailed through this revision.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The fact as admitted by the parties are that two mortgages in respect of the tenancy rights were made by the predecessor in-interest of the petitioners by separate transactions in 1920. By a subsequent transaction the mortgagee purchased the rights from the mortgagor and thus acquired the occupancy rights in respect of the land originally mortgaged in his favour. The only contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on a subsequent suit filed by the owner of the subject land the civil court had decreed that the transaction of mortgage could not have been entered into without the consent of the owner. I have considered this argument Since the decree was in favour of the owner and not the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and also was never executed, the benefit of such decree cannot be claimed by the petitioners.
3. In view of these observations I would find no force in this revision which is rejected.