On the foot of Mutation No,5352 dated 4-5-1982 respondent Gul Zaman purchased some land from Sher Afzal in village Majoohan of Abbottabad tehsil. It so happened that on 5-3-1982 Gul Zaman made a report with the Patwari about the transaction in question which he recorded in his daily diary and thereupon entered a sale mutation. On the same day Sher Afzal vendor appeared before the Revenue Officer in Jalsa-e-Aam at Village Maira Pain and admitted the correctness of sale. He was identified before the Naib-Tehsildar by Fazal Dad s/o Fateh Khan and Hukam Dad s/o Muhammad Zaman, two notables of the Ilaqa. Later on the mutation was finally attested on 4-5- 1982 in Jalsa-e-Aam at village Maira Pain. Sher Afzal had died by then.
2. Sher Afzal had no wife and children. Petitioner Faqir who is a collateral of the deceased thereafter on 26-6-1982 filed Civil Suit No,354/1 of 1982 and challenged 'the correctness of Mutation No,5352 in the basis of fraud and collusion. He claimed a share in the estate of the deceased through inheritance alongwith Mst. Bagi etc. Who were added as pro forma defendants in the suit.
3. Respondent No,1 alone resisted the claim. The learned trial Judge after settling as many as 11 issues arising out of the pleadings recorded evidence on both sides and thereafter on 22-3-1986 while finding no favour with the claim of the petitioner dismissed his suit. The same happened in appeal before the District Judge on 13-6-1982. Hence this petition under section 115, C.P.C.
4.
4. Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 (Act XVII of 1967) provides for a procedure for making records. Subsection (1) states, that any person acquiring by inheritance, purchase, mortgage, gift, or otherwise, any right in an estate as a landowner, or a tenant for a fixed term exceeding one year, shall, within three months from the date of such acquisition, report his acquisition of right to the Patwari of estate, who shall (a) record such report in the Roznamcha to be maintained in the prescribed manner; (b) furnish a copy of the report so recorded, free of cost, to the person making the report; and (c) send a copy of the report, within a week of its receipt by him, to the Union Committee, Town Committee or Union Council within which the estate is situated.
Subsection (6) provides, that a Revenue Officer shall, from time to time, enquire into the correctness of all entries in the register of mutations and into all such acquisitions as aforesaid coming to his knowledge of which, under the foregoing subsections, report should have been made to the Patwari and entries made in that register, and shall in each case make such order as he thinks fit with respect to any entry in the periodical record of the right acquired. Similarly, under subsection (7) except in cases of inheritance or where the acquisition of the right is by a registered deed or by or under an order or decree of a Court, the Revenue Officer shall make the order under subsection (6) in the presence of the person whose right has been acquired, after such person has been identified by two respectable persons, preferably from Lambardars or members of the Union Committee, Town Committee or Union Council concerned, whose signatures or thumb impressions shall be obtained by the Revenue Officer, on the register of mutations.
5. In the instant case, after the oral sale transaction between Sher Afzal and Gul Zaman with regard to the suit land, the matter was reported by respondent No,1 to the Patwari on 5-3-1982 which he recorded in his daily diary. The Patwari thereupon entered Mutation No,5352 on the prescribed form in the register of mutations and verification thereon was made by the Naib-Tehsildar in lalsa- eAam' on the same day at village Maira Pain as required by subsections (6) and (7) of section 42 of the Act ibid. Sher Afzal was identified by Fazal Dad son of Fateh Khan and Hukam Dad son of Muhammad Zaman notables of the area and their signatures were obtained on the register of mutations. Both these persons have been brought in Court in evidence of the contesting respondent. They have admitted the correctness of their signatures on the original mutation which was produced. They have stated that Sher Afzal and Gul Zaman were known to them. Fazal Dad runs a hotel at village Maira Pain whereas Hukam Dad is a school teacher. They are not related to either party. Their evidence has been rightly believed as they had no motive to make false statements. The original mutation and the Naib-Tehsildar who made identification of Sher Afzal on this mutation before the said two persons in `Jalsa-e-Aam' at village Maira Pain on 5-3-1982 and thereafter sanctioned the mutation on 4-5-1982 has been also produced in evidence before the trial Court. He has affirmed the position.
6. It is true that Sher Afzal was dead when the final order on the mutation was passed but after the inquiry and verification of the sale mutation in presence of the deceased vendor in `Jalsa-e-Aam' at village Maira Pain on 5-3-1982 by the Naib-Tehsildar as required under sections 42(6) and (7) of the Act, he was bound to accord a formal sanction to the mutation which he did on 4-5-1982. A sale in landed property is deemed to be completed on the day on which it is effected and not on a subsequent day on which a mutation is sanctioned about such a transaction as title in the property passes when the transaction of sale is completed and is not postponed till the attestation of a mutation by the Revenue authorities as mutations by themselves do not confer and create any title. These are maintained for fiscal purposes and are no doubt valuable evidence though not conclusive. The learned counsel for the respondents in this view of the matter has correctly placed reliance on the case-law reported in PLD 1961 (W.P.) Baghdad-ul-Jadid 34, PLD 1971 Peshawar 205 and PLD 1974 Peshawar 51.
7. Sher Afzal did not leave behind any widow or child. His estate had devolved on the suit parties being legal heirs of the deceased. The sale of the case land had been assailed by petitioner Faqir alone. He has although joined in his suit Mst. Bagi etc. (pro forma defendants Nos.2 to 8) but they did not advance the claim by attending the Court in support thereof. They were placed ex parte during proceedings before the trial Court. None of them had thereafter appeared before the trial Judge in evidence although their inheritance rights were equally affected in case of upholding the impugned transaction a true one. This conduct on the part of the other heirs of Sher Afzal strongly speak on the genuineness of the transaction made by the deceased in favour of respondent Gul Zaman.
8. In this view of the matter, I see that the learned Courts below have arrived at correct conclusions in the decision of the case by recording findings which had arisen on the strength of evidence as adduced by the parties on both sides and there had been no misreading or non-reading of evidence on their part. Similarly, no case of jurisdictional error within the limits of section 115, C.P.C.
Has been made out on which the learned lower forums could be held guilty.
9. Finding no substance in the revision petition I shall dismiss it with costs.