MAHAMMAD MUNJR KHAN, J.- On 1.3.1971 Ch. Mehmood Ahmad respondent filed a suit for possession on the basis of being collateral of the vendor against Muhammad Aslam petitioner in the court of Senior Civil Judge Gujranwala. The suit Was resisted . In his written statement, the defendant /petitioner raised pleas of insufficiency of court i.e, limitation ,estoppel, collusiveness and also claimed compensation for the house constructed by hint on the. Suit land. He also denied the superior right of the plaintiff. The trial Court framed 10 issues. The parties led evidence. The defendant/petitioner did not press the pleas of estoppel and collusiveness. The trail court found that the plaint was properly valued for the purpose of court-i.e and jurisdiction and that the right of the preemption of the plaintiff was superior .The defendant/petitioner was entitled , to Rs.8000/- as compensation for the improvements, but in view of its findings on' issue No.3' that the suit was barred by limitation, the trial court dismissed it on 30.1.1976. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed appeal before the learned District Judge who while reversing the findings of the trial court-on the issue of limitation and on the issue of improvements decreed the suit with' costs and directed the defendant/petitioner to remove structure from the suit land within one month from the Hate of the judgment, hence this revision.
2. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the findings of the. Appellate Court on issues No.3&4, which are as under:-
3. "Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD.
4. Whether the defendant has effected any improvements in the suit land ? If so, when, to what extent arid with what effect? OPD"
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that copy of Khasra girdawri Ex,D1 shows that the defendant/petitioner had taken the possession of the suit land before the attestation of the mutation and as such, the suit was barred by time and' that in any case, the petitioner was entitled to the compensation for the improvement awarded by the trial court. The respondent has already been ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. The mutation of the sale was entered on 20.3.1970 and attested on the same day. The suit land being a share in the joint khata was not capable of admitting physical possession, therefore, there remains no doubt that the limitation commenced from the date of attestation of the mutation and not from the date of the delivery of possession of the suit land to the vendee/defendant. So the suit which was filed within one year from the date of the attestation of the mutation was Well within time and no exception can be taken to the findings of the Appellate court on this issue. There is nothing .On. Record to show that the improvements was made before the filing of the suit and as such no exception can be taken to the findings of the Appellate court on issue No:4. I do not see any illigation, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate court.
Pursuant to the above discussion there being no force, the revision is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
4. Since the execution of the decree was stayed by this court vide its order dated 8.11.1978 and the plaintiff/respondent is not aware of this judgment of the dismissal of the revision, therefore, copy of this order may be sent to him through post. If he has not deposited the sale price of Rs.700/-, he shall deposit the same with the trial court with in one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment, otherwise the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed.