Maqsood-ur-Rehman son of Khanizaman, petitioner herein, instituted on 16-6-1982 Suit No.365/1 v.
(1) Mst. Janay widow, (2) Dilawar son of Qalandar and Muhammad Aslam and 4 others his sisters and brothers for grant of decree of declaration of title to ownership along Muhammad Aslam and others of suit land bearing Khasra No.1218 measuring 10 Kanals 1 Maria situate in the Revenue Estate of Ghazi Kot, District Mansehra according to the record-of-rights of 1970-71 and that Mutation No.2577 attested on 29-11-1968 in favour of Mst. Janey and her son Dilawar being illegal is liable for correction and rejection. Decree for possession of the suit land was also prayed for. Learned Judge of the trial Court decreed the suit by a judgment dated 8-1-1987. The learned Judge of the Appellate Court by judgment dated 19-3-1989 accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff. Hence this petition (C.R. No.70 of 1989) instituted on 19-6-1989.
2. The petitioner-plaintiff has stated in para. 1 of the plaint that the suit land owned by Babu Abdullah who agreed to sell the same land to Mst. Resham Jan mother of the petitioner-plaintiff and respondents-defendants Muhammad Aslam and others and a document to this effect was executed but later on Babu Abdullah vendor resiled from the same. Mst. Resham Jan applied to Registrar for registration of the agreement or sale-deed which application was accepted on 10-10- 1968 and the document was registered on 10-10-1969. Meanwhile Qalandar husband of Mst. Janay and father of Dilawar, who was tenant in the suit land along with other land got attested a mutation of sale from Babu Abdullah in favour of his wife and son knowingly that Babu Abdullah had no right in the suit land to do so. Mst. Resham Jan, petitioner plaintiff and respondents- defendants 3 to 8 are her legal heirs, photo copy of the registered sale-deed is appended, whereas Mutation No.2577 is not available at present. The contesting respondent-defendant in reply to para. 1 of the plaint stated that land was purchased bona fide from Babu Abdullah and Mutation No.2577 was attested on 29-11-1968 to this effect. A preliminary objection was raised that the suit is not within time. The learned Judge of the trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed the following material issues:--
(6) Whether the suit is within time?
(8) Whether defendants Nos.1 and 2 are bona fide purchasers, if so, its effect?
(9) Whether the plaintiff and defendants Noa.3 to 8 are owners of the suit land and Mutation No.2577 dated 29-11-1968 is wrong, illegal, hence ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff and defendants Nos.3 to 8?
The learned Judge of the trial Court after recording evidence by a cursory judgment in slipshod manner held that the defendants have not proved adverse possession, therefore, the suit is within time, the defendants failed to prove bona fide purchase and held that the suit land was purchased by registered deed No.413 dated 10-10-1969, therefore, sale Mutation No.2577 attested on 23-11-1968 is wrong. The learned Judge of the appellate Court elaborately dealt with the findings of the learned Judge of the trial Court and referring to the Revenue Record came to the conclusion that the sale Mutation No.2577 was incorporated in the subsequent Revenue Record showing the vendees in possession of the suit land along with other land and the suit instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff was not within time.
3. According to the pleadings of the parties there is one sale-deed executed on 17-9-1968 and registered on 10-10-1969 and one sale Mutation No.2577 attested on 29-11-1968. The sale-deed executed on 17-9-1968 by Babu Abdullah in favour of Mst. Resham Jan vendee was exhibited as Exh.P.W.2/1 wherein it is stated that land bearing Khasra No.1018 measuring 9 Kanals 1 Marla has been sold at sale consideration of Rs.2,000 and possession has been delivered to the vendees, the wholesale consideration has been received, therefore, this 'Iqrar-Nama' is executed in writing. The sale Mutation No.2577 attested on 29-11-1968 has been exhibited as Exh.D.W.1/2 which shows that Babu Abdullah vendor has sold land bearing Khasras No.1218 and 1233 measuring 14 Kanals 11 Marals for sale consideration of Rs.2,000 in favour of vendees Mst. Janay and Dilawar. In the subsequent record-of-rights of 1970-71 Exh.P.W.1/2 Mst. Janay and her son Dilawar are shown in column of ownership of land bearing Khasra No.1318 measuring 10 Kanals 1 Marla.
4. The Revenue Record will show that the respondents are in possession of the suit property continuously, uninterrupted, without any notice in peaceful enjoyment of property since 29-i1-1968 till institution of suit on 16-6-1982, A when the respondents had the first notice that the petitioner also claims ownership of the very land to the extent of 9 Kanals and 1 Marla. Assuming that the petitioner had become owner of the suit land by deed dated 17-9-1968 then onward from 17-9- 1968, the possession of the respondents over suit land as against the petitioner will be adverse and having remained so till 17-9-1980. The suit of the petitioner instituted on 16-6-1982 will be beyond period of twelve years and as such liable for dismissal within the meaning of Article 144 of the Limitation Act.
5. The deed dated 17-9-1968 and registered on 10-10-1969 Exh.P.W.2/1 is doubtful as for the purpose and intent. The deed from its contents is neither agreement to sell nor a sale-deed. The area or measurement of the land is shown 9 Kanals and 1 Marla instead of 10 Kanals and 1 Marla bearing Khasra No.1218 under the title of agreement or acknowledgment'. It is not clear that the agreement/acknowledgment was registered or the sale-deed. The Sub-Registrar simply records on 10-10-1969 that the deed is registered on the orders of Registrar. The deed as such does not convey any meaning, what to say of conferring title of ownership of the suit land upon the petitioner.
6. The respondents are owner in possession of the suit land since 29-11-1968 without notice. The Mutation No.2577 was attested on 29-11-1968 after verification and scrutiny of title of ownership of the vendor in the Revenue Record which is the only mode qua the agricultural land and the attestation of sale mutation is as such valid for transfer of rights as the registered deed. The ownership with possession of the respondents over the suit land is protected as bona fide purchase without notice.
7. Resultantly, looking into all the aspects of the case, the petitioner fails to prove his case on facts as well the law and therefore, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.