' This was a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff, Mst. Saban, was the owner of the land in suit and that the entries in the record-of-rights were ineffective as against her ownership rights. The suit was brought on 9-1-1961. It was dismissed by a judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Jhang, dated 22-7-1966. On the plaintiffs appeal, the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Jhang, were set aside and the suit was decreed by the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, dated 26-6-1967.
2. It was common ground between the parties that the land in suit belonged at one time to Abhoola, who died leaving two sons, named, Mehmood and Rehman. Mehmood had alienated his share and thus ceased to be the owner. As regards the share of Rehman, the position as it emerged from the history of the land as traced in the excerpts (Exh.P.3) was as follows. In the year 1880, Mehmood and Rehman were in possession of the land in suit, their share in the Khata being 1/4th. In the Jamabandi for the year 1889-90, Rehman continued to be recorded as an owner in the khata. Same was the position in the year 1898. In the next Jamabandi viz. Jamabandi for the year 1900-1901, Rehman was recorded as owner but {{URDU TEXT}} and Hassan co-sharer was recorded as {{URDU TEXT}} . These entries were repeated in the subsequent record till the year, 1908. It appears that somewhere between 1908 and 1911 Rehman died. In the Jamabandi for the year 1911- 12, Saleh, a son of Rehman came to be recorded as ; he continued to be so recorded till the year 1928. In the year 1925, Mutation No,6 (Exh. D.1) was entered, its object being to delete the name of Saleh son of Rehman{{URDU TEXT}} and in his place to bring the names of Hassan son of Sardar and Saleh son of Bahadur. During the proceedings before the Revenue Officer, one Nama appeared to claim that he was a brother of Saleh son of Rehman and to state that his brother Saleh son of Rehman had killed his wife and had made himself scarce since long. The final order of the Revenue Officer was made in this mutation in the year 1928. In that order, it was noticed that Saleh son of Rehman was in fact alive and that the statement of Nama was incorrect.
3. Mst. Saban, plaintiff, it should be mentioned here, is the daughter of the abovementioned Saleh. A copy of the death entry of Saleh has been placed on the record; it is Exh. P.S. It shows that Saleh died somewhere in the year 1950.
4. It is obvious that if Saleh was the owner of the land in suit, then Mst. Saban, plaintiff, was entitled to inherit the land in suit as his daughter. It was nobody's case that Saleh had left any other heir.
5. The expression " Lt " means literally out of possession. It is obvious that, by itself, it had been shown as {{URDU TEXT}} in the record-of-rights did not affect Saleh's status as the owner of the land in suit. Yet, no inheritance mutation was attested in favour of Mst. Saban. The admitted position also is that in the year, 1956, Mst. Saban entered into the possession of the land in suit through her son-in-law Mahni by name, who appeared as P.W.2. It is note worthy that one of the preliminary issues was whether the suit was competent in its present form. That issue was decided in the plaintiffs favour, the finding being that Mst. Saban, plaintiff, was, at the date of the suit, in possession of the land. This finding of fact has not been challenged. In this behalf, it is sufficient to say that besides the testimony of Mahni (P.W.2), the respondent produced Khasra Girdawri (Exh.P.8) which shows that Mahni had entered into the possession of the land in 1949, he testified that his status had been as that of the tenant of Mst. Saban.
6. The defendants, appellants herein, are the successors-in-interest of the persons in whose favour Mutation No,6 (Exh. D.1) was attested in the year 1928. In their written statement, it was their case that they had purchased the land from the real owners but of that fact, there was not a speck of evidence on the record. Issue No,3, which reflected that the allegation was, therefore, decided against the defendants by the learned trial Court and the findings was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge. It was not the defendants' case that they had been in adverse possession of the land either. Yet, they claimed to be the owners of the land; their principal ground of defence was that the suit was barred by time.
7. The learned Civil Judge decided Issues Nos.2 and 5 in favour of the defendants. In so doing, the learned Civil Judge observed that the land in suit was originally owned by Mehmood and Rehman; according to him, Rehman had been dispossessed of the land in the year 1901 - 1902 and Hassan and Raja son of Masta had stepped into their shoes. He also referred to the fact that the name of Saleh had been deleted from the record-of-rights in the year 1928. In his view, as Saleh had died in the year 1950, and the present suit had been brought in the year 1961, the plaintiff "had been sleeping over it for eleven years". The learned Civil Judge went on to hold that the allegation in the plaint that cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff one week before the suit was false because the plaintiff had not adduced any evidence in support of her abovementioned contention. As regards Issue No,5, the learned Civil Judge referred to the entries of excerpts (Exh.P3) and observed that it was not clear how Hassan and Raja had taken the possession of the land and how Rehman son of Abhoola had left the possession. He noticed that the name of Rehman as owner had remained in the record-of-rights and that after his death the name of Saleh had continued to be recorded as {{URDU TEXT}}till 1928 when he was deleted from the record-of-rights vide Mutation No,6. In his view, Saleh had never agitated about the deletion of his name and after his death, the land in suit never devolved on the plaintiff.
8. The learned Additional District Judge noticed the entries of Mutation No,6 (Exh. D.1) and observed that that mutation was entered inadvertantly. He found that there was no question of abandonment of ownership rights by Saleh son of Rehman; in any case, as the plaintiff had regained the possession as owner, the plea of abandonment could not be given effect to.
9. Learned counsel for the defendants, appellants herein, mainly relied upon the fact that Rehman and Saleh had ceased to be in possession of the land as far back as 1900-1901; he was also of the opinion that the suit was barred by time because time had started running against the plaintiff when the Mutation No,6 was attested in the year 1928.
10. Thus, there is no doubt whatever that the land in suit was owned by Saleh, father of Mst. Saban, plaintiff, who had inherited it from his father Rehman. As observed above, the defendants had asserted that they, were purchasers for value of the land in suit but of that fact there was no evidence whatever. They did not plead adverse possession either. As regards Mutation No,6 (Exh.
D.1), it by itself did not destroy the ownership rights of Saleh. The object of the mutation was to show Saleh as {{URDU TEXT}}. It was founded on the wrong assumption, and this was noticed by the Revenue Officer himself, that Salehon or Saleh son of Rehman had made himself scarce because he had killed his wife. However that may be, the entry {{URDU TEXT}}' could not affect the position of Saleh as owner. The land in suit was part of a joint khata. It appears that the name of Hassan in place of Saleh was incorporated in the record-of rights because the former was a co-owner in the khata. Thus in the first place, the entries of Mutation No,6 (Exh. D.1) had no basis in fact to support them and secondly it did not affect the ownership rights of Saleh. Saleh could have lost those rights either by alienating the land by the adverse possession of defendants and their predecessors. It must be held, therefore, that the learned Additional District Judge was eminently justified in reaching the conclusion that he did, as regards the plaintiffs title.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants advanced the view that time had started running against the plaintiff when Mutation No,6 was attested in the year 1928. In his view, Article 120 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908 applied and the suit should have been brought within six years of that mutation. This contention fails to take into account the important fact that Mutation No,6 did not destroy the ownership rights of Saleh. However that may be, the land in suit was part of a joint khata and merely because Saleh came to be recorded as {{URDU TEXT}}did not affect his position as co-owner. Learned counsel for the appellants referred, among others to two cases, namely, Ahmed Din v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1971 SC 762 and Luqman and others v. Gul Muhammad and others 1984 SCM R
63. Both those cases, however, were decided on their own facts. The first case was a case under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme framed under the Land Settlement Act, 1958, under that scheme, the Rehabilitation Authorities possessed the necessary powers to hold enquiries into claims made by refugees and to decide all questions of inheritance. In the second case, what the petitioners before the Supreme Court were challenging was not only a mutation recorded in 1956 but also a mutation whereby the entire land had been allotted in the name of one Gehna under Shutar Pal Scheme. Here, the plaintiff was aggrieved by the wrong entries in the record-of-rights.
According to her, she felt aggrieved when the defendants denied her title sometime before the suit.
The learned Additional District Judge, therefore, rightly held that the cause of action had accrued when her title was denied and that the suit was covered by Article 120 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act and was within time.
12. For these reasons, the appeal has no merit and is dimissed but the parties are left to bear their own costs.