MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.---This judgment disposes of to titled petitions for leave to appeal which have arisen out of judgment dated 10-12-1995 of a learned Single Judge of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dismissing Civil Revision No.360 of 1992.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Zarpari and 26 others, petitioners in Civil Petition No.384-P of 1996 instituted a suit wherein besides seeking declaration of their title to and confirmation of their possession over half land bearing Khasra Nos. 1997, 2705 of 1996 and 2707 of 1996 in Village Katlang, Tehsil and District Mardan, entries of the Settlement Record for the year 1925-26 to the contrary subsisting in favour of Nawab Khan predecessor-in--interest of the respondents (petitioners in Civil Petition No. 130-P of 1996 and subsequent sale and gift mutations by him or his successors-in- interest were sought to be annulled. This claim was founded on Mutation Nos.3852 and 3853 both sanctioned on 9-6-1919. Another relief claimed was of perpetual injunction restraining their rivals from demanding the share of produce from them on the basis of the impugned wrong entries of the Revenue Record. As per averments in the plaint, Muhammad Akbar Khan and Nawab Khan were co-owners in equal shares of the land aforesaid, which was partitioned between them by virtue of Mutation No.3853 attested on 9-6-1919 as a result the former was allotted 3/4 share while the latter received 1/4 share vide Mutation No.3853 dated 9-6-1919. Nawab Khan, in turn, allegedly sold his entire 1/4 share of land to Abdul Hakeem predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners which found its way in Record of Rights for the year 1918-19. In the Settlement Record of 1925-26, however, suit land was not only made to form part of Village Shakar Tangi but also it came to be recorded in the names of Muhammad Akbar Khan and Nawab Khan in equal shares. In consequence the defendants took undue advantage of those wrong entries of the revenue record got and inheritance Mutations Nos. 117 and 1386 respectively dated 30-6-1931 and 24-1-1956 and sale and Gift Mutations Nos.2304, 2428, 2399 and 2834 respectively dated 8-12-1966, 22-4-1969, 28-9-1968 and 6-12-1977 and on the basis thereof filed a suit for recovery of produce against them.
3. These averments were traversed by the defendants Nos.13, 14, 21 and 27 in their joint written statement both on factual and legal planes. The parties went to trial on as many as 13 issues including the relief. On the crucial Issues Nos.8 to 12 the learned trial Judge found against the plaintiff-petitioners and non-suited them on 29-1-1990. In appeal, however, the learned Additional District Judge-1, Mardan, while partially accepting it, passed a decree for declaration and perpetual injunction as prayed for to the extent of 3/4 share but affirmed the decree of trial Judge for non-suiting them to the extent of the remaining of 1/4 share holding that 1/4 share had rightly fallen to the share of Nawab Khan by means of Mutation No.3853. Feeling dissatisfied the plaintiffs challenged the appellate judgment and the decree in review petition before the Peshawar High Court. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that by misreading the documentary evidence in the shape of Mutation No.3852 dated 9-6-1919 and Mutation No.3853 dated 9-6-1919, whereby Nawab Khan predecessor-in-interest of respondents was not possessed of any right and interest in the land and the learned Appellate Court had erred to interfere in the order of dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs was not entertained by the learned Judge in the Chambers of the Peshawar High Court holding it to be completely misconceived. According to the learned Judge Mutation No.3852 was based on the registered gift deed dated 9-6-1919 earlier than Mutation No.3852 dated 9-6-1919, therefore, the land covered by the former had no nexus with the latter "whereby Nawab Khan was recognised as owner of 1/4 share out of the land in dispute" and further that "imbroglio appears to have been caused by irrational allocation of shares in Mutation No.3853 which in fact is a correction mutation". The revision petition was thus dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in both the petitions and have also perused the record with their assistance. Muhammad Akbar Khan and Nawab Khan being real brothers were co-owners of the land in equal shares up to 6-4-1919. On 7-4-1919, Nawab Khan transferred his half share (1/4th) by way of registered gift deed to his real nephew Abdul Hakeem son of Muhammad Akbar Khan. This gift mutation found its way in the Revenue Record by virtue of Mutation No.3852 attested on 9-6-1919. Obviously Nawab Khan himself remained co-owner of 1/4 share. It would thus be seen that Mutation No.3852 had nothing to do with Mutation No,3853.
Finding of the appellate as well as the revisional Courts on crucial issue lent ample support from the Revenue Record that Nawab Khan remained co-owner to the extent of 1/4 share which factum was correctly incorporated in the Revenue Record but in Settlement Record of 1925-26 Nawab Khan and Muhammad Akbar Khan had been wrongly recorded as co-owners of the land in equal shares.
The claim of the plaintiffs that Nawab Khan had alienated his entire share by sale in favour of Abdul Hakeem, then predecessor-in-interest is proved to be fallacious the alienation to the extent of his 1 /4 share to Abdul Hakeem and that to by way of gift as has been indicated by us earlier is established. In so far as Mutation No.3853 is concerned it was rightly attested to the extent of 1/4th and 3/4th share between Muhammad Akbar Khan and Nawab Khan.
5. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in both the petitions. The petitions are accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.