On 18-12-1985 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents. In the plaint, it was alleged that the suit 'land was mortgaged with the predecessor of the petitioners vide mortgage deed dated 27-9-1922 for a sum of Rs.99. With these averments a declaration was sought that since the mortgage had not been redeemed within the time prescribed by law the petitioners have become owners of the suit land. In their written statement the respondents denied the said fact and instead stated that mortgage was effected by means of a mutation which was attested on 24-8-1922 and before the expiry of period of limitation, the proceedings for redemption had been filed and are pending with the Court of Collector. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26-7-1989. A first appeal filed by the petitioners was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali, who dismissed the same on 7-11-1989.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that it had been proved on record that the mortgage was made on 27-9-1922 and as such the suit ought to have been decreed. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supports the impugned judgments and decrees.
3. I have gone through the record, copies whereof are appended with the civil revision. I find that the alleged mortgage deed dated 27-9-1922 is not forthcoming on the record. Learned counsel concedes that the said documents was not produced. In the absence of the said document, the learned Courts below have. Very rightly relied upon the mutations Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2 which were attested on 24-8-1927, to hold the suit to be pre--mature and dismissed it particularly with reference to the fact that proceedings for redemption had already been tiled before the expiry of time. , I may further state here that P.W.1 i.e. Ghulam Murtaza petitioner admitted in the course of cross-examination that the mortgage had been effected by means of Mutations Nos. 1753 and 1754 i.e. Exh.P.I and Exh.P.2. He also A admitted that the respondents are in possession. In this state of evidence on record the learned Courts below have very rightly held that the limitation for redemption was to start from date of attestation of the mutations. The impugned judgments and decrees are fully supported by the judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abdul Hanan and 8 others v. --Kapoor Khan and 16 others (1970 SCM R 633).
4. No other point has been urged. This civil revision is accordingly dismissed with costs. '