KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 1.6.1998 of the learned single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and judgment dated 3.12.1991 of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala accepting the appeal of the respondents/plaintiffs and decreeing their suit for declaration with permanent injunction was maintained.
2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that sale mutation No. 118, dated 31.12.1974 was fictitious, collusive, illegal and ineffective qua their rights as they had never sold the suit land owned by them and Mst. Dani, widow of Allah Ditta. Mst. Dani had died and plaintiffs were his legal heirs and after her death owners of the entire suit land. The plaintiffs asserted that Muhammad Sarwar, defendant/petitioner, in collusion with concerned Patwari got sanctioned oral mutation and constructed four walls on a part of the suit land. It was alleged that Eidu son of Mansha was shown as marginal witness of the impugned mutation but he had died two years before the attestation of mutation and Mst. Dani, their mother had died two years before 31.12.1974 i.e. The date of attestation of mutation.
3. The defendant contested the suit on merits as well as on the grounds that the suit was time- barred; that he had constructed a building and had installed a factory (Power Loom) thereon; that the plaintiffs alongwith their mother had sold the suit land to him by making a statement before AC-II on 22.12.1970, so the sale was complete on the said date.
4. Learned Trial Court, after framing necessary issues arising out of pleadings and recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 10.3.1987. On appeal, the decree of dismissal of the suit was set aside and the suit was decreed by learned Appellate Court which decree was not interfered with in revisional jurisdiction by the High Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that entire evidence of the defendant/petitioner has not been examined by the learned two Courts below in proper perspective and the learned Judge of the High Court has not examined the merits of the conclusions reached on the assumption that appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Next it was contended that the question of limitation was rightly and correctly decided as the suit was time-barred as the same was not filed within one year of the sanctioning of the mutation.
6. Having gone through the impugned judgments as well as the evidence on record we find that there is no merit in either of the submissions of the learned counsel. Learned Judge of the High Court was right in observing that the learned Additional District Judge has after thorough appraisal of evidence come to the conclusion that the petitioner miserably failed to prove the sale in his favour or that mutation was attested in accordance with law. Learned Judge of the High Court though observed that the contention pertaining to appreciation of evidence cannot be gone into in exercise of revisional jurisdiction yet he had noticed the important features of the case emerging from the evidence on record. These features are that Muhammad Sarwar, petitioner/defendant while deposing as DW-2 admitted that he had obtained receipt for the payment of consideration amount but the said receipt was not produced in evidence. Again he stated that the vendors had placed their thumb impressions on the statements obtained from them during mutation proceedings but admittedly the revenue record does not contain any such thumb impressions.
Moreover, the transaction of sale was not entered in the Roznamcha Waqiati and it is not shown in the record as to who had reported to Patwari the factum of sale. Furthermore, the two attesting witnesses from the estate were also not cited. Eidu, one of the attesting witnesses had died two years before the sanctioning of the mutation. Same is the position of Mst. Dani, one of the vendors who admittedly died two years before the date of sanction of mutation. It is also not explained as to why the statements of the vendors were statedly recorded on 22.12.1970 and the mutation was itself sanctioned almost four years latter on 31.12.1974 in the absence of the vendors.
7. In the circumstances, the conclusions drawn by the learned Additional District Judge from the evidence on record and affirmed by the learned Judge of the High Court cannot be said to be arbitrary or conjectural. The same are based on evidence on record. Neither any misreading nor any non-reading of the material piece of evidence could be pointed out. The findings of fact as are based on evidence on record, no interference is warranted.
8. Leave to appeal is refused and the Petition is dismissed.