MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.-- Through this common order we intend to dispose of the above petitions which, in their own turn, have arisen out of a common judgment passed by a learned Judge in chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revisions No. 2017-D and 2016-D of 1993 on 13.2.1997 with, among others, the following observations:-- "6. A perusal of mutation No. 886 available at page 152 of the petition shows that land measuring 2 kanals 16 marlas bearing square No. 9 khasra No. 21/1/1 belonged to Rehmat A.I, Sardar A.I and Nizam Din who had sold the same in favour of Sardar Muhammad. The sale-deed Exh.D. 1, in favour of Muhammad Din was made by Sardar Muhammad in his capacity as general attorney of Muhammad Yaqoob. It was stated in the sale-deed that by virtue, of the general power of attorney dated 23.5.1963 Haji Sardar Muhammad had the right to sell land from square No. 9 and khasra Nos. 11/2, 12/2, 19/2 and 20/2. However, the land was shown to have sold by the said attorney from square No. 9, killa No. 20/1 and plot No. 20/1/1/12. It did not belong to Muhammad Yaqoob and Sardar Muhammad in his capacity as attorney of Muhammad Yaqoob was not competent to alienate the same. When confronted with this difficulty, the respondents' learned counsel urged that Sardar Muhammad had never questioned the respondents' title or possession over plot No. 20/1/1/12 and that he can be deemed to have sold property out of his land. Sardar Muhammad may or may not have any objection qua the respondents' title or their possession over the land bearing No. 20/1/1/12 but a Court of law cannot deem that Sardar Muhammad had sold land out of the property belonging to him because the same would be clearly against the contents of the written document. The sale-deed Exh.D. 1, expressly shows that Sardar Muhammad was not selling his own land but that of Muhammad Yaqoob in his capacity as the general attorney of Muhammad Yaqoob. Apparently the respondents' title was defective and they were not entitled to a declaration of being lawful owners of the property. Any how, they were certainly not entitled to object to the petitioner's title who had lawfully purchased the property from Sardar Muhammad, the original owner of the land."
2. It was on 14.4.1999 that this Court passed the following order:-- Dispute in this case pertains to properties having been purportedly numbered as 9/20/1/1/12 and 9/20/1/1/14. While the learned trial and appellate Courts found the property of the respondents, Ghulam Hussain etc. Vis. The plot number last mentioned to be nonexistent, the learned Judge in Chambers seized of Civil Revisions No. 2016/D and 2017/D of 1993 came to the conclusion that such respondent had obtained the transfer of the property in his occupation through a duly registered sale-deed (Exh.P-1) way back in 1965 and has been in continued possession thereof ever since. In so doing the claim of the petitioners which had been upheld by the two Courts below was rejected at the level of the High Court.
"2 The bone of contention is a plot which is part and parcel of survey No 9/20/1/1 measuring 4 marlas 7 sarsais in Chak No. 202/RB, Nishatabad, Tehsil and District Faisalabad. Such therefore, would show that numbers 12 and 14 suffixed to the above survey number may denote either plot numbers or may have some other significance.
"3 In order to ascertain the conflicting claims of the two parties, which appear to be mutually exclusive, inasmuch as if one of them gets a declaration the other would lose, we. Would appoint Mr. Muhammad Atique Khan learned Advocate of this Court as Commissioner to go and visit the site on 17.4.1999 when parties or their representatives would be present at the spot, besides such of the revenue staff as the learned Commissioner may think fit to call to his assistance. Revenue staff may also be required to produce the relevant record by the learned Commissioner. The fee of the learned Commissioner to be shared equally between the parties and paid to him directly, would be Rs. 10,000/-. The Commissioner's report be submitted on 19.4.1999 and the petitioner itself be laid in Court on 20.4.1999."
3. Pursuant to the above order dated 14.4.1999, Mr. Muhammad Atique Khan, Advocate has submitted his report and the parties have also submitted their respective Objections thereto on 2.8.1999 and 9.8.1999.
4. Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, learned ASC appearing in support of the petitions has reiterated the, stand taken by his clients in para 4 of his objections dated 2.8.1999, which reads thus:- "(4) That the annexures appended with the report dated 13.5.1985 and the copy of the Roznamcha and the references made by the learned commission have proved the case of the petitioners Sher Muhammad etc of the existence of 4 marlas 7 sarsahis in Khasra No. 20/1/1/12 and as such has concurred with the findings of the Civil Judge, District. Judge and the contentions of Sher Muhammad before the Supreme Court and that is why the Girdawar Helga, Partwari, the record- keeper of the general record and the Tehsildar, Faisalabad alongwith rapat Roznamcha dated 13.5.1985 have proved and ratified the stand of the petitioners in the 2 cases before the' honourable Court, and the petitioners would be justified in claiming the restoration of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and of the appellate Court and set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court."
5. Contrarily, Rana Abdul Rahim, learned ASC has pressed into service the stand of the respondents in their objections to the report of the ' Commission dated 19.4.1999 to the effect that mention of Khasra No. 20/1/1/12 therein is the result of oversight by the ' Commission' and the same being contrary to the entries of registered deed Exh. P1, is liable to be ignored.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as also perusing the available material generally and the report of Commission' dated 19.4.1999 and the Objections by the parties respectively dated 2.8.1999 and 9.8.1999, we are inclined to the view that report dated 19.4.1999 has proceeded on the right rails in bringing to the, fore the variations in the respective ownerships of the parties herein, being "...The result of interpolation done by the revenue officials after 1.10.1963 when the comparison of the Tarmimi Khasra Nos of Khasra No. 20/1/1 was done by incharge Girda war Halqa, by the name of Tufail Muhammad. The details of interpolations is evident from the perusal of Field Book and the Tarmimi Khasra Nos Annexure "A", which is given below:- "(i) The measurement on the eastern side of Termimi Khasra No. 20/1/1/13 was increased by 1 ft. i.e. From 32 ft to 33 ft and on its western side, an increase of 3 ft was done i.e. From 24 ft to 27 ft.
"(ii) In Termimi Khasra No. 20/1/1/12, an increase of 1 ft was made on the western side i.e. From 32 ft to 33 ft, while on eastern side an increase of 3 ft was made i.e. From 63 ft to 65 ft and on north side, an increase of 1 ft was made i.e. From 56 ft to 57 ft.
"(iii) Similarly, an increase of 3 ft was done on the western side from 62 ft to 65 ft in Khasra No. 20/1/1/11." (emphasis supplied).
7. Resultantly, the petitions are converted into appeals and by allowing the same, the impugned judgment dated 13.2.1997 passed by the learned Judge in Chambers is set aside with the result that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on 28.11.1992 and a learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad on 28.11.1993 are restored in the field with no order as to Costs.