' One Sohna alias Sohnay Khan was the owner of 125 Kanals, 1 Marla of land fully described in the plaint (situated in Chak No,380/W.B., Tehsil Dunyapur District Lodhran). He had died- on 24-6-1992 and the mutation of inheritance bearing No,362, dated 11-12-1993 was sanctioned in the names of his heirs namely Mst. Veero Mai (widow), Mst. Ramzanan Mai (defendant No,1-respondent No,1), Mst.
Bashiran Mai, Mst, Salamat Mai and Mst. Niamatay Mai (daughters) as well as his sons Bashir Ahmad and Sher Muhammad petitioners-plaintiffs. The said sons, have instituted their suit to obtain a declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the total property comprising 125 Kanals, 1 Marla of land on the basis of 'Tamleeknama' executed by their father during his lifetime on 30-4-1992 who made declaration to the factum of ' Tamleeknama' which was accepted by them and who delivered the physical possession of the suit property to them. Mst.
Ramzanan Mai has transferred her share comprising 13 Kanals and 13 Marlas of land in the name of her son Haji Mahmood respondent No,2. They contended that both the mutations attested thereafter had no validity which are liable to be set aside. Claiming to be in possession of the suit property to the extent of the respondents-defendants both the petitioners-plaintiffs filed an application for the grant of temporary injunction getting the respondents-defendants restrained from interfering in their possession on the suit property as well as from alienating the same in any manner in favour of any person till the decision of their suit with the assertions that they have a prima facie case, that balance of convenience was in their favour and that in case of dismissal of their petition they would suffer an irreparable loss. The suit and the application have been resisted by the respondents-defendants who contended in their written reply that the alleged famleeknama' dated 30-4-1992 was false, fictitious and inoperative particularly when Sohna Khan was aged about 105 years on 24-6-1992 and was suffering from 'Marz-ul-Maut'. They maintained that the Tamleeknama' was fictitiously got prepared after the sanction of mutation of inheritance and that the petitioners were not in possession of the suit property. After hearing the parties the Trial Court partly accepted the application and restrained the respondents-defendants from alienating the suit property to any persons during the pendency of the suit. However, to the extent of the remaining relief about the maintenance of status quo as to possession in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs, the application was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the petitioners- plaintiffs met with the same fate. Hence this revision petition.
2. I have heard the preliminary arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners- plaintiffs who mainly canvassed before me that the dispute has not been disposed of in its true perspective by both the lower Courts and that much legal weight has to be given to 'Tamleeknama' dated 30-4-1992 regarding which except their sister Mst. Ramzanan Mai respondent No,1/defendant No,1 no other heir of their father Sohna alias Sohnay Khan has raised the objection. In my view relief of temporary injunction as prayed for with respect to the maintenance of possession of the petitioners-plaintiffs at the spot regarding the suit property has rightly been denied by the lower Courts. No doubt the petitioners-plaintiffs have relied on '
Tamleeknama' dated 30-4-1992. However, it is the document in their own favour and without corroborative evidence the same cannot be given the weight in the summary manner as required and desired by the petitioners. To meet such a situation section 42 was incorporated in the Land Revenue Act, 1967, according to which any person acquiring by inheritance, purchase, mortgage, gift or otherwise, any right in estate as a landowner or a tenant for a fixed term exceeding one year shall within the three months from the date of such acquisition report his acquisition of right to the Patwari of the estate who shall (a) record such report in the Roznamcha to be maintained in the prescribed manner, (b) furnish a copy of the report so recorded free of cost to the person making the report and (c) send a copy of the report within a week of its receipt by him to the Union Committee, Union Council within which the estate is situated. It is the admitted position that no such report was made to the Patwari by the petitioners-plaintiffs on the basis of Tamleeknama' dated 30-4-1992. The wisdom behind the introduction of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 is that the factum of gift (Tamleeknama) etc. Is brought to the notice of the Revenue Hierarchy within the reasonable maximum time of three months so that affected person is not taken by surprise.
About the transfer of the possession on the basis of Tamleeknama' no report was made to the Patwari. Mst. Ramzanan Mai respondent No,1/defendant No,1 is a female being the sister of the petitioners-plaintiffs and obviously her name could not be recorded/entered in the Khasra Girdawari about her physical possession on the property acquired by her through inheritance.
However, the foundation of the claim of the petitioners-plaintiffs is the Tamleeknama and the said positive fact has to be established by them which cannot be given the legal weight at this initial stage in view of paucity of evidence. Due to the violation of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 by the petitioners-plaintiffs it can safely be expressed that they have no prima facie case, that the balance of convenience is not in their favour and that in case of dismissal of their petition they would not suffer an irreparable loss. Consequently I deem myself justified in holding that the lower Courts have rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs for the grant of temporary injunction to the extent of the proposed relief of maintenance of status quo as to possession in their favour.
3. For what has been said above, I dismiss this revision petition in limine.