1. ' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---This appeal by special leave of the Court has arisen out of the following facts:-- ' On 26-8-1974 the respondent No,1 filed a suit for possession in respect of the shops in dispute claiming himself to be the landlord and the appellant to be a tenant under him. The respondent No,2 was arrayed as defendant No,2 in the suit on the ground that the appellant had sub-let a shop to him. The suit was contested by the appellant and as many as twelve issues were framed. The learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent No,1 had become the owner on the basis of Mutation No,24.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the gift in favour of the respondent No,1 was not valid in the absence of delivery of possession. This question was also raised before the High Court but the contention was repelled because the property being in possession of the respondent No,1 physical possession was neither possible nor necessary. The gift had not been challenged by the donor. The case of the appellant is that the shops in question were sold by its original owner, to the appellant through an unregistered sale-deed in 1950. The sale-deed was considered by the Courts.
3. The appellant has absolutely failed to establish that the shops in question were sold by the original owner to the appellant.
4. ' Learned counsel submitted that the mutation entries in favour of the respondent do not create any right in favour of respondent No,l. The entries in Revenue Record merely create presumption but such presumption is rebuttable. In support of his contention, he has referred to Muhammad Ali v. Custodian of Evacuee Property PLD 1976 Kar. 109, Muhammad Iqbal v. S.A.M. Khan PLD 1970 Lah.
5. 614, Kaniz Fatima v. Member, Board of Revenue PLD 1973 Lah.
495. The appellant has absolutely failed to rebut the entries and a title had been created in favour of the respondent and the original owner had transferred the title in favour of the respondent No,1.
6. Once it is held that the appellant had no title he is nobody to challenge those entries.
7. ' The learned counsel next contended that as the gift by way of transfer was not made through a registered sale-deed therefore, no title was created in favour of the respondent. This contention has no force because the status of the appellant is that of a tenant and he is debarred to challenge the title of the owner. Additionally, Transfer of Property Act does not apply to the North- West Frontier Province. The Jamabandi also shows that the respondent No,1 is the owner of the property in dispute and therefore, a presumption in favour of the respondent No,1 has been created and this presumption of title has not been displaced by any evidence. There arc concurrent findings of fact by all the Courts below.
8. ' This appeal has no force. The same is dismissed.