' 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-fee, limitation, estoppel, collusiveness and also claimed compensation for the house constructed by him 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 trial Court found that the plaint was properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction and that the right of the pre-emption of the plaintiff was superior. The defendant/petitioner was entitled to Rs,8,000 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 date 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 Nos. 3 and 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 and with what effect? OPD."
' Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that copy of Khasra Girdawri Exh. 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 improvements 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 petitioners with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. The mutation of 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 were 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 illegality, 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 within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment, otherwise the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed.