M. JAPED BUTTAR, J. - This revision petition instituted by the petitioner, Ghulam Muhammad/defendant No. 1, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.7.1989, passed by ,the Additional District Judge, Mianwali, whereby the petitioner's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.3.1989, passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Mianwali, has been dismissed.
2. In spite of service through citation in Daily 'Khabrain , the respondents, did not bother to enter appearance. They were, therefore, proceeded ex parte on 8.10.1998. Even today nobody is present from the respondents' side.
3. The relevant facts are that through exchange mutation No. 4030, respondent No. 5, Nasarullah Khan, one of the plaintiffs alienated 8 marlas of his ownership in khata No. 335, pertaining to Mauza Yarookhel Pacca, Tehsil and District. Mianwali. In favour of respondent No. 6/defendant No. 2, GuI Jehan Khan. This is evident from Ex.P-3, copy of Missal-e-Haqiyat for the year 1974-75, pertaining to khata No. 335. Similarly, Mst. Ghulam Ayesha, respondent No. 7/proforma defendant sold 10 marlas of her ownership in khan" No. 335 of the said village through registered sale-deed No. 1090, dated 14.9.1980, registered on 28,12.1982 through Court (Ex.D-1), to above mentioned Gul Jehan Khan, defendant No,'
2. She also sold through the same sale-deed 1 kanal, 11 marlas of her land in khata No. 336 and an other piece of land of I markt in khata No. 835 to same GuI Jehan Khan. Defendant No, 2, GuI Jehan Khan. On his-turn sold the land. Measuring 1 kanal, 3 marlas in khata No. 336 to the petitioner/defendant No. 1/Ghulam Muhammad through registered sale-deed dated 12.1.1983 (Ex.P- 1) and further sold the land measuring 1 kanal, 18.Marlas from khata No. 335 to the petitioner through registered Sale-deed. 'dated, 10.4.1983 (Ex.P-2).
4. The respondents Nos, 1 to 5, the plaintiffs instituted the present. Suit against the present petitioner/defendant No, 1 and respondent No. 6/defendant No. 2, GuI Jehan Khan. The other respondents 7 to 15 were impleaded as proforma defendants. The plaintiffs sought a declaration to the .: effect that they and the proforma defendants are owners in possession of land measuring 7 kanals, 16 marlas comprising khata No. 335 and the land measuring 17 kanals, 10 marlas comprising khata No. 336 and that the other defendants including the petitioner had no right thereto. The sale-deed dated 14.9.1980 from defendant No. 3, Ghulam Ayesha, in favour of defendant No. 2, Gul Jehan was challenged on the ground that defendant No. 2 got the same fictitiously registered from Ghulam Ayesha/defendant No. 3 in his favour and she never sold the land to defendant No. 2. .Ft was also alleged that the proceedings in that regard are still pending before the Lahore High Court. It may be noted here that the civil revision instituted by Mst. Ghulam Ayesha was dismissed for non-prosecution as far back as on 6.6.1992 and, therefore, no such proceedings are now pending. It was also asserted by the plaintiffs that even otherwise the registered sale-deed could be executed in favour of defendant No. 2 because Ghulam Ayesha never owned so much land. The sale-deed dated 12:1.1983 (Ex.P-1) and dated 10.4..1983 (Ex.P-2) executed by Gul Jehan Khan, defendant No. 2 in favour of Ghulam Muhammad, petitioner/defendant No. 1 were challenged, on the grounds, that Gul Jehan Khan illegally transferred 1 kanal, 18 marlas of land to the petitioner in khata No. 335, whereas he was not owner of so much land in the. Said khaki.
5. The suit was contested by the petitioner and by Gul Jehan Khan, defendant No. 2, vide their written statement dated 29.1.1985. Learned Trial Court after framing the necessary issues recorded- the evidence produced by the parties. The plaintiffs in support of their claim examined Muhammad Ramzan (one of the plaintiffs) as PW-1 and Nasrullah Khan, as PW-2. They also placed on record copies of sale-deeds, Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2, copy of Jamabandies, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4, copy of Khasra Girdawari Ex.P5, copy of plaint Ex.P-6, copy of order Ex.P-7, copy. Of plaint Ex.P-8, copies of execution petitions Ex.P-9 and ex.P-10. The defendants on the other hand did not produce any evidence and simply produced copy of sale-. Deed No. 1090, dated 14.9.1980, registered through Court on 28.9.1982 (Ex.D-1) and copy of Exchange-Deed (Ex.D-2).
6. The Civil Judge 1st Class, Mianwali, vide his judgment and decree dated 21.3.1989 partly decreed the plaintiffs' suit. He observed as follows:- "I have come to the conclusion that both the parties are owners in possession of the suit land and the plaintiffs have cause of action partly to the extent of 1 kanal of land sold thereunder in excess of entitlement of defendant No. 2. The sale-deed No. 1090, dated 14.9.1980, executed by proforma defendant No. 3, Mst. Ghulam Ayesha in favour of defendant No. 2 and sale-deed No. 34, dated 12.1.1983 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 about the sale of 1 kanal, 3 marlas of land out of the disputed khata No. 336 are lawful and binding on the plaintiffs and proforma defendants. Issues Nos. 1 and 3 are decided accordingly.'
7. The plaintiffs suit was thus partly decreed and it was declared that sale-deed No. 269, dated 10.4.1983 (Ex.D-2), executed by defendant No. 2, Gul Jehan Khan in favour of petitioner/defendant No. 1, Ghulam Muhammad is illegal, void and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiffs, to the extent of 1 kanal of land sold thereunder in excess of entitlement of the vendor, defendant No. 2. The petitioner's appeal as mentioned above, has been dismissed by that Additional District Judge, Mianwali, on 9.7.1989. Hence, this revision petition.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgments of the Courts below suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence and Gul Jehan Khan validly sold land measuring 1 kanal, 18 marlas in khata No. 335 to petitioner through sale-deed dated 10.4.1983 (Ex. P- 2).
9. I have gone through the record. The judgments of the Courts below do not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of evidence. The documents referred to above show that the defendant No. 3, Ghulam Ayesha sold 10 marlas of land (Ex.D-1) to Gul Jehan Khan in khata No. 335 and the plaintiff, Nasrullah Khan transferred 8 marlas of his ownership in khata No. 335 to Gul Jehan Khan.
This is apparent from Ex.P-3, copy of Missal-e-Haqiyat for the year 1974-75, pertaining to khata No.
335. It is thus clear that defendant No. 2, Gul Jehan Khan was owner of merely 18 marlas of land in khata No. 335 and not of 1 kanal, 18 marlas in the said khata. The registered sale-deed dated 10.4.1983 (Ex.P-2) executed by Gul Jehan Khan in favour of the petitioner transferring 1 kanal, 18 marlas of land in khata No. 335 is thus illegal and void to the extent of 1 kanal. The Trial Court thus correctly held it to be illegal to that extent.
10. In view of the above mentioned, I see no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.