1. ' Material point surviving for decision in the civil revision at the instance of defendants was, whether they were bona fide transferees for value of the land-in-dispute in their possession, without defect in title of their predecessor and the Courts below were erroneous for not investing them with this legal status, in their judgments passed on 21-2-1988 and 11-11-1991, respectively.
2. ' A piece of land measuring 1 Kanal, 16 Marlas, comprising Khasra. No,2918, situate in revenue estate Dora Budhal of Tehsil Gujar Khan was owned by a non-Muslim evacuee. In 1962, it was allotted to Feroze Din son of Qaim Din AJ&K refugee as Sarbrah of his family. Allotment in his favour was implemented in records of the revenue estate. Name of aforesaid allottee was borne on the Revenue Records till the preparation of Jamabandi for the year ,1969-70. Upon payment of compensation,. Proprietary rights in the above piece of land were conferred on the aforesaid allottee by attestation:of Mutation No, 122 sanctioned on 2-7-1979. Strangely, in the Jamabancli prepared for the period 1969-70, parentage of the original allottee was changed from Qaim Din to- Muhammad Din. Instead of reproducing correct name of the allottee, as Feroze Din son of Qaim Din, name of Feroze Din son of Muhammad Din was substituted in the aforesaid Jamabandi.
3. Substituted entry regarding incorrect parentage subsisted in the Revenue Records till ICharif, 1982.
4. On 1-6-1982, Sardar Munk Ahmad Khan as general attorney of Mushtaq Ahmad son, Mst. Sakina Bibi, Mst. Surraya Bibi and Mst. Salina Bibi daughters of Feroze Din sold 20 Kanals, 5 Marlas of land including Khasra No, 2918 to Stibedar Sher Ahmad, Iftikhar Ahmad, Subedar Muhammad Khan, Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Taj and Muhammad Nawaz sons of Fazal Elahi, petitioners in civil revision for a sum of rupees one lac through a registered sale-deed of even date. Sale was implemented in Revenue Records by attestation of Mutation No, 1322 sanctioned on 26-104982.
5. Thereafter, the' vendees-pe,fitioners were shown as owners of land-in-dispute, in possession of Sabir son of Bagga as non-occupancy tenant. Upon discovery of the error relating to revenue entries, Feroze Din alongwith his son Muhammad Hussain brought a civil suit for declaration against Mushtaq Ahmacl, Mst. Sakina Bibi, Mst. Surraya Bibi and ma. Safina Bibi, son and daughters of Feroze Din of Dora Budhal, that the plaintiff alongwith ddendants Nos.1 to 3 in the suit, were true owners of the land-in-dispute comprised in Khasra No, 2918, and, prayed for the relief of perpetual injunction for stopping the aforesaid Mushtaq Ahmad, etc. From causing interference with their possession on the land-indispute. Defendants Nos.4 to 7 of the present suit confessed judgment in favour'of the plaintiffs. Consequently, suit was decreed on 8-1-1984. It appears that the vendees of the land-in-dispute also brought a suit for declaration for annulment of decree dated 8-1-1984 passed in the declaratory suit filed by Feroze Din and his son against Mushtaq Ahmad, etc., but failed in the trial Court, and, a revision filed against the decision was also dismissed.
6. ' On 5-3-1984, Feroze Din son of Qaim Dint his son Muhammad Hussain, wife Mst. Makhni and Mst.
7. Samar Jan daughter of Qaim Din brought together a suit against the defendants-petitioners for possession of the land in Khasra No,2918 and mesne profits from it. It was averred that the plaintiffs were owners of the land-in-dispute, and, defendants Nos.1 to 6 had taken its forcible possession from them, under a fake sale of the land-indispute from. Mushtaq Ahmad etc. Who were neither allottees of the land, nor its owners. Defendants Nos.1 to 6 submitted their defence and controverted the allegations in the plaint. Their principal defence was that they were in possession of the land as its bona fide purchasers for value without notice of any defect in the title of their predecessor. Their case was that they had purchased .The land after inquiry into the entries existing in the revenue records.. Other defences of minor nature were also taken by them. On 2-3- 1985, the trial Court settled appropriate issues reflecting controversial points for determination by it.
8. Thereupon, it took evidence from the parties. Evidence consisted of a statement of one of the plaintiffs and a co-defendant and the rest were all documents on both sides. On scrutiny of the above material, trial Court held that plaintiffs were owners of the land-in-dispute; its, sale by Mushtaq Ahmad, etc. Through their general attorney in favour of the defendants-petitioners was unauthorized, and, thus, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. An appeal filed against the decree of the trial Court failed in the Court below.
9. ' In revision, it is contended that the petitioners were innocent purchasers of the land-in-dispute for valuable consideration and deserved protection. On records, they failed to earn the protection of being bona fide purchasers of the land-in-dispute. There is no doubt that the land-in-dispute was allotted to Feroze Din son of Qaim Din as, head of the family. Later, ownership rights were transferred to Feroze Din, and, a mutation was attested to that effect in his favour. His allotment was carried in the revenue papers. By a diabolical stroke of an unknown hidden hand, parentage of Feroze Din was substituted. Instead of Qaim Din, name of Muhammad Din was inserted in revenue papers. Consequent upon the interpolation, name of the allottee of the land-in-dispute came to be recorded as Feroze Din son of Muhammad Din, instead of Eteroze Din son of Qaim Din. Record does not assist as to how the land-in-dispute devolved upon Mushtaq Ahmad, etc. Inheritance- mutation relating to the estate of Feroze Din son of Muhammad Din has not been placed on file.
10. Nor is there any Other document on file to support transfer of proprietary rights in the land-in- dispute in their favour. Neither the vendors, nor their general attorney who transacted the sale, entered the witness-box to depose about it. Further, there is no evidence that the land-in-dispute was ever allotted to Feroze Din son of Muhammad Din or that he is a displaced person entitled to its allotment or transfer. A fake entry relating to incorrect parentage of the original allottee/transferee of the land was hardly sufficient to confer title on the vendors to make a complete sale of it to the petitioners for denuding the true owners of their rights in the land. There was neither any positive act, nor a meaningful omission on the part of true owners to enable the recorded dwners for holding them out as ostensible owners of the land for dealing with it effectually. Vendees arc not shown to have made any reasonable inquiry into the entries in Revenue Records for ascertaining correct title to the land-in-dispute. Therefore, benefit of section 41, of the Transfer of Property Act for claiming bona fide title: to the land-in-dispute is not available to them. Section 41 is an exception to the rule that a person cannot confer a better title than he himself has, but in order, to obtain its benefit, its essentials are required to be proved that is-- (a) the transferor is the ostensible owner; (h) he is so by, express or implied consent of the true owner;
(c) the transfer is for consideration; and (d) the transferee has acted bona fide and in good faith.
11. All the above ingredients must concomitantly exist together. In default, the principle shall not apply.
12. When the facts of the case are looked at and examined in the above perspective, the view expressed on the status of the petitioners in the Courts below appeared to be free from any fault or infirmity. In a well-considered judgment by the lower Appellate Court, it scrutinized every conceivable corner of record, and, upon its careful assessment found that the petitioners were not bona fide purchasers for iealue of the land without notice of defect in title of their transferors. There is little scope for a' different view. Civil revision is without substance. It fails in limine.
13. Record be returned.