' This is defendants' petition for revision of the judgment and decree dated 26-9-1987 of the Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh reversing decree of the Civil Judge Muzaffargarh dated 21- 4-1984 whereby he dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent as being barred by time.
2. On 1st June, 1952, it was reported to the Revenue Officer that Murad All had died issueless and was survived by one brother and two sisters, (the petitioners herein) Mutation of his inheritance with respect to land measuring 33 Kanals 2 Marlas situate at Mauza Baliani Ranjha Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh was consequently attested in the name of the petitioners on 4-6-1952.
3. On 10-11-1980, Muhammad Ramzan, respondent herein, filed a suit for declaration claiming that he being the son of Murad Ali deceased was his only legal heir and the mutation of inheritance had been sanctioned in the name of the petitioners illegally, unlawfully and fraudulently. It was further claimed that the respondent/plaintiff was minor at the time of the death of his father and was not aware of the mutation which came to his knowledge only a few months before the filing of the suit.
4. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing written statement in which it was denied that Muhammad Ramzan was son of Murad Ali. It was asserted that Mst. Zuhran, the mother of respondent, had illicit relations with one Karim Bakhsh and the respondent was born out of that relationship and it was on or after about a year of the birth of respondent Mst. Zuhran was married to Murad Ali. It was also denied that the petitioners, who were in possession of the land or that he had been receiving produce from the petitioners.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff being the legal heir of Murad Ali deceased is entitled to get the suit land ?
OPP.
(2) Whether the mutation of inheritance No,94 was sanctioned illegally and without facts and as such the same is void, ineffective on the rights of the plaintiff ?OPP.
(3) Whether the suit is barred by time ?OPD.
(4) Whether the suit is improperly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ? If so, then what is the correct value ?OPD.
(5) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action ?OPD.
(6) Relief:
6. In support of his case, respondent/plaintiff examined Muhammad Yar, P.W.1, Qadir Bakhsh, P.W. 2 and himself appeared as P.W.3. A copy of mutation No,61 (Exh.P1) sanctioned on 1-1-1938, copy of Mutation No,94 sanctioned on 4-6-1952 (Exh.P2), copy of register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1974-75 (Exh.P3), copy of register of deaths (Exh.P4) and copy of pedigree-table (Exh.P5) were also produced. The evidence of petitioners/defendants comprises of the statements of Allah Ditta, D.W.1, Ghulam Sarwar, D.W.2 and Ghulam Qadir, petitioner No,1, as D.W.3. In rebuttal, the petitioners produced a copy of the register of births as Exh.P6, extract from register of deaths as Exh.P7 and a copy of Nikahnama as Exh.P8.
7. On the basis of the evidence led before him, the Civil Judge on 20-7-1985 held that Muhammad Ramzan was the son of Murad All deceased and his only legal heir and as such mutation of inheritance in favour of the petitioners was illegal and unlawful. However, the suit was dismissed on the fmding that it was barred by time as the impugned mutation of inheritance was sanctioned on 4-6-1952 while the suit was filed on 10-11-1980.
8. Feeling dissatisfied, the respondent took the matter in appeal and succeeded before the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh who vide his judgment dated 26-9-1987 upheld the decision of the trial Court on issues Nos.1, 2 and 5 that Muhammad Ramzan respondent was the son of Murad Ali but reversed the findings of the Civil Court on issue No,3 and held the suit to be within time. While coming to this conclusion, learned Additional District Judge observed that the limitation would run from the date of knowledge of the respondent and not when the mutation was sanctioned. It was also found that the petitioners had been paying produce of the suit land to the respondent.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that while holding that the respondent was not aware of the mutation, the evidence has been misread by the Additional District Judge. It was further submitted that the finding of the lower appellate Court that the petitioners had been paying produce to the respondent is not based upon any legal evidence but on the other hand, the witnesses produced by the petitioners who deposed to the contrary had not been cross-examined by the respondent and as such, there was no occasion for the Additional District Judge to disbelieve them.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has defended the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below.
11. It has been concurrently found by both the Courts that Muhammad Ramzan was son of Murad All deceased. This finding has not been challenged before him by the learned counsel for the petitioners. According to Exh.P4, copy of death register, Murad Ali son of Siddique died on 29-1-1951 and as per Exh.P6, copy of register of birth, date of birth of Muhammad Ramzan is 1-10-1944. Thus, at the time of death of his father, Muhammad Ramzan respondent was about 7 years of age. It is not disputed that even during the lifetime of Murad Ali, the land was in possession of his brother and sisters i,e, the petitioners. Learned Additional District Judge on thorough appraisal of the evidence found that after the death of Murad, the petitioners had been paying the produce of the land in dispute to the respondent. While coming to this conclusion, he relied upon the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2, No legal error much less a jurisdiction defect has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the approach of the Additional District Judge. It is neither possible nor permissible to re-appraise evidence in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court or to substitute its own finding for that of the lower appellate Court by taking another view of evidence. It is unfortunate that the evidence by the petitioners was totally kept out of consideration by the trial Court while deciding issue No,3.
12. Be that as it may, the finding recorded by the Additional District Judge that respondent had no knowledge of the attestation of Mutation, Exh.P2 till about 6 months before the filing of the suit is supported by the evidence on record. The respondent, while appearing as P.W.3, had categorically denied any earlier knowledge of the mutation. In these circumstances, onus to prove that the respondent was aware of the mutation when it was sanctioned was shifted to the petitioners which they failed to discharge by leading any cogent evidence. I am not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the two witnesses produced by the petitioners had not been cross-examined on this point, their attestation should be taken to have been admitted as correct by the respondent. As already observed by the learned Additional District Judge, this principle may well be applied against the petitioners themselves as the statement of the respondent that he had come to know of the mutation when he went to the Patwari for the purpose of obtaining copies in order to alienate the land about 6 months before the filing of the suit was not subjected to cross-examination. The weight of evidence clearly supports the finding recorded by the trial Court.
13. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is discretionary with this Court. The Additional District Judge, while decreeing the suit, has done substantial justice between the parties and decree passed by him is not liable to be interfered with. (See Messrs Ghulam Farid Muhammad Latif and others v. The Central Bank of India Limited, Lahore PLD 1954 Lahore 575 and Hari Singh v. Khan Moin ud Din Khan and others AIR 1944 Lahore 397. It is distressing to notice that the petitioners, who are real brother and sisters of Murad All deceased, went to the extent of denying his paternity and asserted that he was an illegitimate son of Karim Bakhsh. On this important aspect, both the Courts for valid reasons have found against the petitioners. At the time of the death of his father, respondent was 7 years of age and the petitioners by practising fraud upon Revenue Officer managed to have the mutation attested in their favour. They cannot be allowed to reap the benefit of their own wrongs. Consequently, even if there be some merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner which as already held is not well-founded, that the suit was not within time; it is a fit case where this Court should refuse to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners.
' For all these reasons, this petition fails and is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.