GUL ZARIN KIYANI, J.-Two real sisters Mst. Maqsood Begum and Mst. Khushnood Begum were defendants No. 2 and 3 in the civil suit brought by plaintiff Mst. Aisha Bibi for avoidance of sale mutation No . 55, sanctioned on 30.5.1970 in favour of Mohammad Abdullah defendant No. 1 and consequent sale of the land in dispute by him by registered deed dated 26.9.1972 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 and to have it declare that she alone was owner in possession of the land not to be interfered with by all the three defendants. Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit on 24.5.1988 but in appeal, its decree was reversed and the plaintiffs suit was decreed to her on 23.5.1990 by learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura.
2. It is this decision that is contended in civil revision by defendants 2 and 3. Two points are raised in the revision petition. First is about the genuineness of sale of land by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1, and, secondly, whether the suit filed to challenge the sale by mutation was barred by limitation. On consideration, points raised in the revision petition have no real merits and the controversy raised in it is concluded by a proper finding of fact in the Court below.
3. A ten marlas plot at mauza Gujranwala of Tehsil and District Sheikhupura belonged to the plaintiff. By mutation No.55 dated 30.5.1970, ownership rights ir the plot were mutated in favour of Mohammad Abdullah by way of sale from the plaintiff at the sale price of Rs. 1000/-. Mohammad Abdullah sold the plot at the same price to defendants 2 and 3 through registered sale deed dated 26.9.1972. Plaintiff denied the sale to Mohammad Abdullah and the receipt of consideration from him. She stated that neither she nor anybody on her behalf ever contracted to sell the land in dispute to Mohammad Abdullah and that the mutation of sale asnetioned in his favour was a fake document prepared in collusion with the revenue staff. Further, as there was no sale of rights in the plot from her to defendant No. 1, further sale made by him in favour of defendants 2 and 3 was unauthorised, and, not binding upon her. Defendant No. 1 did not appear to contest. He was proceeded against ex-parte. Defendants No.2 and 3 submitted a joint defence, and, controverted the material averments in the plaint. Divergent pleadings of the parties gave rise to as many as seven issues including that of relief. Those have been clearly set out in the impugned judgments of the Courts below and to avoid further burdening the judgment need not be reproduced. As said above, material points requiring determination in the revision petition are whether the plaintiff sold the plot in dispute to defendant No. 1, and, the suit filed by her was in time. To establish that no sale of the plot was made by the plaintiff, two P.Ws gave evidence for her. Wahga PW.1 is a Lambardar of the village. He deposed that plaintiff had neither sold the plot in dispute to defendant No. 1 nor had he identified her or her attorney at the time of the attestation of sale mutation. The witness further stated that possession of the plot was a till with the plaintiff and foundation, had been laid on it.
Sardar Ali PW.2 made a similar statement. Atta Ullah son, and, Mukhtar-e-Aam of the plaintiff as PW3 gave statement that his mother neither herself nor through his father ever sold the plot in dispute to defendant No. 1. It was further stated that both of them had never appeared before the Revenue Officer in connection with the attestation of the impugned sale- mutation and the sale ascribed to them was wholly invalid. Copy of register haqdaran zamin for the year 1966-67 Ext. Pl, sale mutation No.55 (part palwar) Ext. P2, registered sale deed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3, Exl. P3, and, sale mutation 128 sanctioned to give effect to the registered sale deed dated 26.9.1972 were produced in evidence. To rebut the plaintiffs version, Maula Dad DW.l, and, Mst. Maqsood Begum DW.2 (defendant No.2) appeared and made statements. They did not say much about the sale by plaintiff to Mohammad Abdullah. Their evidence was confined to the subsequent sale evidenced by registered sale deed. This was the entire evidence upon which the Courts below examined the genuineness of the sale by plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 and gave conflicting decisions. Sale by Mst Aisha Bibi in favour of Mohammad Abdullah was oral. It was given effect to by mutation No.55 sanctioned on 30.5.1970. Except for the sanctioned mutation, there is nothing in writing to support the transfer of ownership rights and receipt of consideration.
Onus lay on the beneficiary of the sale mutation to establish its genuineness by leading satisfactory evidence. None appeared to convincingly show that either the plaintiff or any person holding a valid power from her had ever appeared before the Revenue Officer to admit the sale and receipt of consideration. To the contrary, a Lambardar of the village deposed that he had not identified the plaintiff or her Mukhtar-e-Aam at the time of attestation of sale mutation. To the similar effect was the statement on oath by .The son of the plaintiff holding a general power of attorney to appear and give evidence on her behalf. Mohammad Abdullah did not step in the witness-box to support the sale in his favour. Upon record, plaintiff gave sufficient evidence to negate the sale ascribed to her in the impugned mutation No.55 of 30.5.1970. The contesting defendants did not effectively rebut it. Mutation in itself is neither a document of title nor a proof of sale. In case of dispute on sale, it was the duty of the vendee or his successors i-e petitioners to prove affirmatively that the sale of plot was made ; plaintiff or her general attorney had appeared before the Revenue Officer, admitted the sale and receipt of consideration. The negative, they say, is easier to prove than positive. Positive had to be established by the vendee and the negative by the alleged vendor. Having regard to the evidence led in the case, it is clear that the sale of the plot in dispute by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 was not established. Additionally, it is conceded in defendants* evidence that plaintiff was still in possession of the plot. This factor also gave strength to absence of sale by her. Though the Courts below on appreciation of evidence, differed in their conclusions, yet the finding recorded on point of sale by the learned lower appellate Court appears to be convincingly true and being a finding on question of fact is not susceptible to review in revision. It does not suffer from the defects of either mis-reading or non- reading of record. Merely that a different conclusion is possible on evidence on point of sale is hardly a ground to upset it . I would, accordingly, endorse the finding of the lower appellate Court on this point. This brings me to the bar of limitation. Not only the plaintiff was owner of the plot in dispute and had not sold it but she was found in its possession also. There is no evidence that her possession over the plot was ever effectively interfered with. Therefore, the suit filed by her on 8.7.1982 on the basis of cause of action disclosed in the plaint was quite in time. To the facts, Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 applied which gave six years to the plaintiff from the time when her rights were actually jeopardised. See Fateh Ali Shan and others versus Muhammad Bakhsh and others - A.I.R. 1928 Lahore 516. There are number of judgments which support the correctness of the above statement. They have been correctly summed up in Gul Khan versus Said Hassan Shah and others -P.L.D 1968 Peshawar 148. Learned counsel gave me no ruling which contradicted the above statement. He merely relied upon the wording of Article 120 of the second Schedule of Limitation Act to convey that limitation ran from the date of the attestation order. I do not think it is a correct view of law. Tue position is that which has been stated in case of Fateh Ali Shah (Supra). In my opinion, both the conclusions reached in the Court below on, the sale and time bar are correct. In this view, there is no room for causing interference with them. Consequently, civil revision fails in limine.