The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of land measuring 54 Kanals 4 Marlas being half share of 108 Kanals 8 Marlas as described in the plaint; that the respondents have no concern whatsoever with it and that Mutation No.561 dated 12-2-1971 in respect of the aforesaid land is illegal and ineffective as against his rights. As a consequential relief permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in his possession over the land in dispute was also sought.
2. The respondents-defendants Nos.1 to 4 by filing separate written statements contested the suit while the respondent-defendants Nos.5 and 6 who are sons of the petitioner-plaintiff in their written statement conceded the suit. The contesting respondents besides raising pleas of estoppel, limitation and collusion between the plaintiff and defendants Nos.5 and 6 averred that there has been protracted litigation between the plaintiff and late Munawar Shah, their predecessor-in- interest regarding the land measuring 341 Kanals 2 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Bokharian vide Civil Suit No.339 of 1.968 which was disposed of on 26-6-1970 on the basis of compromise. It was pleaded that according to the compromise half of the land in village Bokharian was given by Munawar Shah to his brother Ahmad Shah the present plaintiff in lieu of the land in dispute then held by Ahmad Shah in Chak No.139. It was added that in this compromise Ahmad Shah plaintiff-petitioner undertook to have land in dispute alienated and transferred in favour of Munawar Shah and the plaintiff himself got the mutation in question entered in the revenue record in the manner that instead of alienating the entire 6-1/4 Acres, only half of the land was transferred in the name of Munawar Shah while the other half was alienated in favour of his sons defendants- respondents Nos.5 and 6 in violation of the aforesaid agreement. It was added that the aforesaid act of bad faith came to their notice after the death of aforesaid Munawar Shah and then they filed to suit titled: Ghulam Fatima and others v. Mahmood Shah and others. This suit was disposed of on the basis of oath on Holy Ouran. It was averred that in the aforesaid circumstances the land as alienated vide Mutation No.561 continues to be owned, held and possessed by the respondents- defendants. The learned trial Court after framing necessary issues and recording evidence of the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30-1-1986. The appeal filed by the petitioner also failed vide judgment and decree dated 6-10-1986 of the learned Additional District Judge.
3. Learned counsel in support of the revision petition submitted that both the learned Courts below have erred in law in dismissing the suit returning the finding on issue No.3 that the suit was barred by time and by deciding issues 'Nos.5 and 6 against the petitioner-plaintiff. Learned counsel has also taken me through the evidence on record. Issues Nos.5 and 6 are crucial issues in the case, These read as under:-
(5) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? OPP.
(6) Whether the Mutation No.561 dated 12-2-1971 is illegal, ultra vires, collusive and void and ineffective qua the plaintiff? OPP, Both the learned Courts below have recorded concurrent findings against the plaintiff-petitioner.
The factual pleas taken by the parties to claim ownership in the land in dispute and with regard to the mutation in question have been noted above. The documents relevant to these issues are copy of register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1975-76 Exh.P1, copy of Khasra Girdawari Exh.P2, copy of Mutation No.561 Exh.P3, copy of the sale-deed dated 26-6-1970 entered in the register of Wasiqa Navis Muhammad Bakhsh DW.1 Exh.D1, compromise deed Exh.D2, statements Exh.D3 and D4. The contesting respondent produced ten witnesses including Sheikh Ahmad Nawaz Qanuni, Advocate, Chiniot DW.2. He deposed that the compromise was arrived at between Ahmad Shah plaintiff- petitioner and late Munawar Shah which is Exh.Cl in the original file and the same has also been marked as Exh.D2. Ahmad Shah appeared as PW.5 and admitted that a compromise dated 26-6- 1970 was executed at Jhang respecting the land in village Bokharian and in compliance thereof he had surrendered the land of the share of Munawar Shah who in turn had given the land of village Bokharian to him. He volunteered that the lands were exchanged under that compromise. He also accepted as correct the suggestion that his suit was for half of the land measuring 341 Kanals 2 Marlas of village Bokharian. He also accepted the suggestion as correct that in lieu of the said land he had given land measuring 6-1/4 Acres in Chak No.139. He also admitted that he had parted with the possession of the said land. He, however, denied that he had himself got the mutation in question entered and sanctioned.
4. I asked the learned counsel as to which was that land of Chak No.139 which Ahmad Shah had alienated with possession to Munawar Shah the predecessor-in-interest of contesting respondents. He was unable to point out the land of Chak No.139 which was so alienated by Ahmad Shah. He was also not able to show that Ahmad Shah had held any other land in Chak No.139 except the one alienated vide mutation in question. It could not, therefore, be denied that this is the very land which is subject-matter of this suit. This fact alone sufficiently belies the claim made by Ahmad Shah in the present suit. Be that as it may, the concurrent findings of fact are based on evidence on record. Neither any misreading nor any non-reading of any material piece of evidence could be pointed out. This revision petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with nor order as to costs.