' On 15-10-1975 respondents Nos.1 to 14 filed a suit against respondents Nos.15 to 21 and the appellants. In the plaint it was stated that Muhammadi Begum, respondent No,15 sold the suit land measuring 257 Kanal's, 8 Marlas to the plaintiffs/respondents for a consideration of Rs,20,592 and Mutation No,1561 was entered on 18-6-1966. Dilbar Hussain, the husband and attorney of the said respobtient No, 15 received the consideration and got his statement recorded before the Revenue Officer, on 19-6-1966. However, the mutation was kept pending as some consolidation appeals were pending and the Revenue Officer ordered that the mutation will be taken up after the consolidation appeals have been decided. Possession of the land was delivered in terms of para.7 of the plaint. While the mutation was so pending respondent No, 15 proceeded to sell 414 kanals 9 marlas of land through a Court decree dated 12-7-1967 to respondents Nos.16, 17 and appellants Nos. 1 to 3 vide a Court . Decree dated 12-7-1967. Mutation No,1683 was entered on the basis of this Court decree on 13-8-1967. Both these mutations were taken up by the Revenue Officer on 10-4- 1972. Whereas Mutation No,1561 was cancelled, Mutation No,1683 was attested on 12-7-1974. Later land measuring 131 kanals, 4 marlas was sold to appellants Nos.4 to 7 vide Court decree dated 25- 7-1974. Mutation No, 2613 was attested on 25-10-1974. The appellants accordingly sought a declaration that they are the owners of the suit land and that the order cancelling Mutation No, 1561 and sanctioning of Mutation No, 1683 is illegal and void.
2. It may be stated here that as a result of consolidation proceedings the description of land and its particulars were amended accordingly.
3. Said respondent No, 15 did not turn up to contest the said suit. However, the appellants filed a written statement. In reply to para.3 of the plaint where the plaintiffs/ respondents had stated that Muhammadi Begum had sold the suit land to them and the said mutation was entered and also in reply to para.4 where payment of consideration to Dilbar Hussain, the attorney of Muhammadi Begum and is making a statement confirming the same was alleged, they pleaded ignorance.
Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 4-4-1984. The plaintiffs/respondents tiled a first appeal which was heard by the learned District Judge, Khushab who allowed the same and decreed their suit on 13-11-1984.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants argues with reference to the case of Muhammad and others v. Sardul (PLD 1965 (W . P.) Lah. 472) that the plaintiffs/respondents had failed to prove a valid mutation or a sale in their favour. According to the learned counsel since the plaintiffs/respondents had come to the Court as such to seek relief, no weakness in the case of his clients should give any spport to the case of the plaintiffs/respondents. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents, on the other hand, argues that no one had disputed the sale and the mutation and as such the rule laid down in the said judgment being relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants would not apply.
5. 1 have gone through the records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. There is no cavil at all with the rule laid down in the said judgment being relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. In fact the rule had been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abdul Majeed and 6 others v. Muhtmmad Subhan and 2 others (1999 SCM R 1245).
However, this Court as well as the apex Court while laying down the rule has referred to a dispute as to the transaction. To my mind in order to attract the said rule the minimum requirement is a bare denial of the transaction by the party to whom the act is attributed or any person claiming for the said party. I have already stated above that Muhammadi Begum or her husband or attorney did not turn up at all to deny the sale being pleaded by the plaintiffs/respondent either through pleadings or by entering the witness-box, that leaves the appellants. I have already referred to their pleadings above. They have not denied the sale ' which has been pleaded with full particulars in the plaint. Gul Jehan, appellant appeared as D.W.1 and when confronted in cross-examination which took place on 14-6-1980, that is after about five years of the filing of the suit and several years after filing the written statement, remained content with stating that he is not aware that Muhammadi Begum had sold the suit land to the plaintiffs/respondents. Fateh Khan appellant appeared as D.W.2 and he also opted to remain in blissful ignorance about the factum of sale in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents with which he was confronted in the witness-box. In the absence of any denial whatsoever of the sale pleaded by the plaintiffs/respondents, I find myself in agreement with the learned District Judge that the plaintiffs/ respondents stood absolved of the rigors of the rule laid down in the aforesaid judgment.
No other point has been urged. The R.S.A. Is without any force and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.