1. RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J. -- On 29.11.1993, Mst. Jannat Bibi (deceased) instituted suit against the petitioners Imam Bakhsh etc. For obtaining declaration that she was the owner in possession of the suit land and mutation No. 256 having been sanctioned on 26.6.1998 was against law on the fact of it. To start with, it was based on fraud and forgery. The plaintiff continued to allege that no valuable consideration was given to her. Permanent injunction restraining the petitioner No. 1 from claiming himself to be the owner of the suit land and alienating it was also asked for. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing written statement contending that the suit land was, in fact, sold by Mst.
2. Jannat Bibi in favour of Imam Bakhsh, the petitioner against valuable consideration. They raised objections about limitation, competence of suit, estoppel, cause of action and suit valuation. On the divergent pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the suit is within time? OPP
(2) Whether the suit is not competent in the present form? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff is estoppel by her words and conduct to file the instant suit? OPD (4)Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standi ? OPD
(5) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction? If so, its correct valuation? OP Parties.
(6) Whether the mutation of sale No. 256, dated 26.6.1988 is illegal, void, without consideration and result of fraud and mis-representation and is ineffective upon plaintiff's rights? OPP (7). Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land ? OPP
(8) Relief.
3. The Trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing their learned counsel vide judgment dated 16.1.1996 dismissed the suit. It was held that the plaintiff had no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit. On appeal having been filed by the successors-in-interest of Mst.
4. Jannat Bibi, an Additional District Judge, Lodhran vide his judgment dated 7.10.1996 set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court holding that it was proved that no price was paid to the plaintiff before the impugned mutation was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, findings recorded by the, Trial Court were set aside by allowing the appeal of the respondents. The petitioners challenged the validity of the judgment and decree of first Appellate Court through Civil Revision No. 1059/96 which was heard and dismissed by the Lahore High Court vide impugned judgment. It was noted by the High Court that the mutation in question was sanctioned at the dera of Khadim Hussain DW-2 (lambardar) while the vendor appeared before the Tehsildar in Parda. In other words sale transaction was disputed by the respondent and as such, heavy burden was placed on the vendee to prove that the sale of the land in question took place in lieu of valuable consideration. This burden was not discharged by the petitioners by producing reliable and trustworthy evidence. This is a petition for, leave to appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The dispute in this case is in respect of the transfer of property in question between Imam Bakhsh (brother), Allah Wasai (mother)/petitioners and Mst. Jannat Bibi (sister)/respondent No. 1. The first Appellate Court and the revisional Court after due appraisal of entire evidence on record have concluded that the mutation having been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for the transfer of the disputed land is based on fraud and misrepresentation. This is a finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below.
5. No misreading or non-reading of evidence of the parties could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is also no question of law of public importance involved in these proceedings. The impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are just, fair and proper.
6. There is, therefore, no substance in this petition which is dismissed by refusing leave to appeal.