A suit for declaration was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs praying that Mutation No.420, dated 22- 6-1993 whereby the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs namely Sikandar Khan son of Amir Khan sold the land in question for a consideration of Rs.90,000 was illegal being based on fraud and misrepresentation. An application for temporary injunction was moved in the Court below with the prayer that respondents/defendants be restrained to interfere with the possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs and that they may be further restrained not to alienate the land in question, during the pendency of the suit. The application was dismissed by the learned trial Judge vide his order, dated 18-7-1998. An appeal against the dismissal order was filed, which too was dismissed vide order, dated 1-12-1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad.
Hence this revision petition.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs that the land in question belonged to Sikandar Khan, who allegedly sold the same to respondents/defendants without receiving any consideration and that the sale transaction was based on fraud, forgery and hence void ab initio.
3. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs that petitioners/plaintiffs were in possession of the land in question and as such their possession ought to be protected during the pendency of the suit. Likewise it was contended that further alienation of the suit to a third party would lead to multifariousness of proceedings and as such the petitioners/plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss.
4. Lastly it was contended that the learned trial Court as well as the learned Additional District Judge committed gross error in refusing temporary injunction in the light of aforesaid facts.
5. I have considered the foregoing submissions and have also gone through the photo copy of Khasra Girdawari added with the present revision. While relying on the aforesaid Khasra Girdawari the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contended that Azam Khan i.e. One of the petitioners is shown to be a son of Sikandar Khan, a co-sharer, who had sold the land in question. It was, therefore, prayed that the petitioners/plaintiffs were entitled to stay order which had wrongly been refused. The perusal of the aforesaid Khasra, irdawari will, however, show that Sikandar Khan, a co-sharer is shown as ultivator through a tenant namely Ahmad son of Shah Muhammad Khari.
In the ame Khasra Girdawari Naushaba Begum, Sahib Bibi, Afzal Begum and Irshad egum have also been shown in possession as co-sharers through tenant Mala. It is, thus., obvious that both parties are shown as co-sharers in the column of cultivators in the Khewat in dispute as would be clear from the Khasra Girdawariat page 39 of this petition. In such a situation, a co-sharer cannot be restrained through an injunction to utilize the share in his possession. Even other were the question of forgery, fraud and misrepresentation raised against the mutation in dispute are the questions of facts needing evidence at the trial to establish them in such a situation, it prima facie cannot be said that the mutation of sale in favour of respondents/defendants by the predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs was without effect. On the contrary, it had been sanctioned and the possession delivered to the alienees as would be clear from the Khasra Girdawari mentioned above, which shows them as co-sharers in the Khata in dispute. As such the learned trial Court was justified not to grant stay order as prayed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, because if the subject-matter is further transferred, it shall be subject to the principle of Lis Pendens and further alienees would be bound by the decree passed in the suit below. Even other were) in case of alienation, the next transferee can be impleaded as a party to avoid any further complication.
6. In view of the above discussion, this petition has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine.