' Suit for declaration that Ghulam Farid, plaintiff and pro forma defendant No,6 Mst. Allah Wasai are owners in possession of 80 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land bearing Khasra No,238 situate in village Zaman Talokar and that the defendants Nos.1 to 5 have no concern whatsoever with the said land, was dismissed by the judgment and decree, dated 7-5-1992 of the Civil Judge, D.I. Khan. Appeal filed by Ghulam Farid, plaintiff also failed vide judgment and decree, dated 15-11-1992 of the District Judge, Tank at Camp D.I. Khan. By the same judgment, the learned District Judge, Tank accepted the cross-objections of the defendants-objectors and decided issue No,3 in favour of the said defendants holding that they had matured their title over the suit land for having remained mortgagees for more than 60 years.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the two Courts below the plaintiff Ghulam Farid Khan has come to this Court in revision under section 115, C.P.C.
3. According to the statement of Malik Manzoor Ahmad, District Kanungo, who was examined as C.W.1 and who produced in Court copies of 'Goshwara Malkiyat' and relevant copies of the Jamabandi in respect of the suit property, the old Khasra number of the property in suit was 104 and its ownership was recorded in the name of Ahmad, as a result of private partition, vide mutation No,141, dated 8-9-1903. The suit property had been mortgaged with Sikandar Khan in the column of ownership, vide mutation No,4, dated 28-6-1983 and through mutation No,82, dated 30- 6-1901, it also stood mortgaged with said Sikandar Khan in the column of the cultivation as well. On the death of Ahmad through mutation No,22, dated 20-7-1905 his inheritance devolved on Thoda, Adha sons of Qaim and Noor, Ghulam Haidar, Bahadar, Siddique as the legal heirs of Ahmad. On the death of Bahadur his share in the property through mutation No,43 devolved on Ghulam Haidar, Noor, Siddique sons of Ahmad and Thoda and Adha sons of Qaim. In the 'Jamabandi' for the year 1901-02, old Khasra No,104 was allotted Khasra No,213 and through mutation No,134 attested in the year 1911, the entries regarding mortgage with Sikandar Khan in the 'Khana Kasht' were deleted and vide mutation No,140, dated 8-6-1911, the said Khasra No,213 was old to Malka son of Dilawar. Prior to this alienation vide mutation No,89, dated 19-8-1909, 1/4th share of Ghulam Haidr son of Ahmad was redeemed which was given due effect in the column of ownership. It is worth to be pointed out that according to entries in the 'Jamabandi' for the year 1908-09, the suit property in Khasra No,213 had been devided in four equal shares, namely, 1/4th share in favour of Thoda and Adha, 1/4th share in favour of Noor Ahmad, 1/4th share to Ghulam. Haider and 1/4th share to Ghulam Siddique. Through mutation No,133 attested on 8-5-1911, the share of Adha, Thoda, Siddique and Noor were redeemed, and' as such the name of Sikandar Khan as the mortgagee in the suit property was deleted. However, in the subsequent 'Jamabandi' for the year 1912-13 while mutation No,140 was being given effect in the Revenue Record in respect of the suit property, Malka, the purchasaer of the suit property was again recorded as a mortgagor under Sikandar Khan, mortgagee while as pointed out above, the entire Khasra number stood already redeemed. From the statement of the District Kanungo (C.W.1), it is further clear that mutation No,133, through which the land stood redeemed, was to be given effect in the Jamabandi, 1912-13, and entry showing Sikandar'Khan was mortgagee of the suit land was made in excess of the official duty and as such the said entries are inadmissible in evidence. Article 49 of the Qanoone-Shahadat provides that:-- "The entry in any public or other official book, register or record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty. Or by any other person in performance of duty specifically enjoyed by the law and the country in which such book, register or record is keep, is in itself a relevant fact."
' Thus, the entires regarding redemption of land through mutation No,133, dated 8-5-1911 removing Sikandar as mortgagee of the suit land is a fact relevant for all purpose and the entries in the subsequent 'Jamabandi' as a result of exercise official manipulation cannot create any obstacle in the way of the plaintiff concerning the mortgage of the suit property. From the Revenue Record, coupled with the-statement of the aforesaid C.W. It is clear that by mutation No,299 one Dad who had inherited the suit property from Malka, the original owner sold his share to Mustaqueem son of Bakhsha on whose death it was inherited by Mst. Allah Wasai, Widow of Mustaqeem (pro forma defendant No,6) and Ghulam Farid son of Mustaqeem, the plaintiff. The correctness of the mutations referred to above has not even been challenged by the contesting defendants. On the basis of these realities, based on time old record of right it is proved that the land in question stood redeemed long before and the contesting defendants have no legs to stand upon their plea that having remained as mortgagees for a period or more than 60 years they have matured tide by way of prescription. On that score, the findings of the trial Court based on correct appraisal are upheld and those of the Appellate Court in cross-objections are set aside.
4. The next question that falls for determination is application for Article 120 of the Limitation Act on the basis of which the trial Court non- suited the plaintiff. Although under Article 120 (ibid) a suit for correction of entries in the Revenue Record is to be filed within a period of six years but it is equally true that limitation runs as soon as the defendant has definitely challenged the plaintiff s title to the property in suit by casting cloud or shadow over it. The plaintiff has taken a specific plea that despite the wrong entries in the Revenue Record regarding redemption of land, he and defendant No,6 continued to be the owner in possession of the land in suit and have been bearing the fruit thereof as the sole owner. Copies of the Khasra Girdawaries Exh.P.W.1/4 pertaining to the years 1970-71, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 would disclose that Mst. Allahwasai etc. Have been recorded as owners of the suit Khasra No,238. Copy of the 'Fard Jamabandi' for the years 1966-67 and 1969-70 and 1977-78, copies Exh.P.W.1/1, Exh.P.W.1/2 and Exh.P.W.1/3 also disclose that Mst. Allahwasai and Ghulam Farid have been shown in the column of ownership regarding suit Khasra No,238. The suit was instituted on 17-9-1980. It is well- settled that the possibility of a fresh cause of action for declaratory relief is recognized and the doctrine is broadly formulated that the plaintiff seeking a declaration is entitled to sue upon each successive invasion of his right i,e, that time runs a new when there is a fresh attack on plaintiff's title or a fresh denial of his right. The recording of the plaintiff and pro forma defendant as owner in the column of ownership both in the 'Jamabandi' and in the Khasra Girdwaries up to 1978-79 and bringing suit in 1980 on the refusal of the defendants to correct the wrong entries in the Revenuer Record regarding mortgage/redemption of the suit land, the trial Court erred in coming to conclusion that the suit was hit by limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act.
Accordingly while accepting this civil revision petition, I set aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and decree the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs.