' The factual background giving rise to the present civil revision is that Allah Wasaya Langrah father of Imam Din on the one hand and Allah Wasaya Lar, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.2 to 4 and Aman Ullah petitioner No,1 on the other were the original owners of land measuring 16 Acres situate in Mouza Pursan Tehsil and District Rahimyar Khan. Imam Din filed a suit for declaration that the aforesaid owners executed an Adhlapi agreement on 9-4-1957 in his favour for digging a well, levelling the land and bringing it under cultivation. According to his claim, he had fulfilled all the conditions of the said Adhlapi agreement and was thus, entitled to the ownership to the extent of 32 Kanals in Rectangle No,473/3 Killa Nos.6 to 9. It was averred by Imam Din that 8 Acres of land falling to the share of his father namely Allah Wasaya Langrah devolved upon him and his brother through inheritance upon the death of his father. There is no dispute regarding the land to this extent. It was further alleged that the petitioners had further sold land measuring 32 Kanals, 1 Marla in favour of Imam Din and his brother Nizam Din for consideration of Rs,6,000 through Mutation of Sale No,844. The said suit was filed, as according to Imam Din, the petitioners were not abiding by Adhlapi agreement and had instead through Mutation No,905, dated 4-4-1971 had transferred through oral sale land measuring 32 Kanals in favour of Siraj Din, respondent No, 1 .
2. During the course of the trial of' the said suit, another point which fell for determination was the specific Killa numbers which were the subject-matter of the Adhlapi agreement and the Killa numbers which were the subject-matter of Mutation No,905 made in favour of Siraj Din.
3. The said litigation was set at rest by the final judgment of this Court passed in Civil Revision 148 of 1981 on 24-11-1985. My learned brother Akhtar Hassan, J. Decided the said revision and resolved the controversy between the parties in the following terms:-- "As a result, the civil revision is accepted with costs throughout, the impugned judgment/decree of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside and the petitioner-plaintiff's suit is decreed that he had become owner of Killas Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 and further that the subsequent sale thereof by means of Mutation No,905 shall not affect his rights therein."
4. On the basis of this judgment, Siraj Din respondent No,1 filed a suit for mandatory injunction against respondents Nos.2 to 5 praying for a declaration to correct Mutation No,905, dated 4-4-1971 in accordance with the aforesaid judgment of this Court dated 24-11-1985. According to him, according to the judgment in Civil Revision No,148/81 after recognition of Adhlapi right of Imam Din respondents, Mutation No,905 was also found to be intact. However, after satisfying the Adhlapi claim of Imam Din, an area of 11 Kanals, 18 Marlas was left in the relevant Khata and as such Siraj Din, respondent No,1 was entitled to the ownership at least to the said extent. Respondent No,1 further contended that whereas the Adhlapi agreement related to Killa Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9, the Mutation No,905, dated 4-4-1971 in his favour related to Killa Nos.12, 13, 14 and 15.
5. This suit of respondent No,1 was contested. Vide judgment and decree, dated 21-11-1987, the suit of respondent No,1 was decreed with the direction that the official respondents should correct Mutation No,905, dated 4-4-1971 and land measuring 11 Kanals, 18 Marlas from Khata No,16/16 should be transferred in the name of respondent No,
1. It was also directed that possession be delivered to the said plaintiff/ respondent.
6. Feeling aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, an appeal was filed by the present petitioners which was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 30-5-1988. While coming to the said conclusion, the learned Appellate Court found that Mutation No,905, dated 4-4-1971 was duly proved on the record and repelled the argument of the petitioners that the same was hit by section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on the principle of part delicto. It was also-held that no fraud was proved in the attestation of Mutation No,905. The learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the learned trial Court that respondent No,1 was entitled to the decree to the extent of 11 Kanals, 18 Marlas and that the Mutation No,905, dated 4-4-1971 was to be amended accordingly with consequential relief for possession.
7. In this civil revision, the abovementioned concurrent findings of fact passed by both the learned lower Courts is sought to be challenged.
8. Raja M. Sohail Iftikhar, Advocate appearing in support of the petition again reiterated the objection that the oral sale witnessed by Mutation No,905 was ineffective in view of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 having not been effected through a registered instrument. He further submitted that the alleged sale in favour of respondent No,1 was based upon fraud and collusion and was thus, ineffective upon the rights of the petitioners. He further submitted that the suit filed by respondent No,1 was barred by time.
9. On the other hand, Sardar Muhammad Hussain Khan, learned counsel for respondent No,1 contended that the controversy had been set at rest by the judgment, dated 24-11-1985 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No,148 of 1981. He submitted that identical objections were raised against Mutation No,905 before this Court in the said civil revision but the same did not find favour with this Court. He drew the attention of this Court to the concluding para. Of the judgment in Civil Revision No,148 of .1981 in which on the one hand the Adhlapi rights of respondent No,6 namely Imam Din were established and on the other hand, Mutation No,905 in favour of Siraj Din respondent No,1 was also kept intact.
10. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
11. The history of litigation between the parties is a bit chequered which was nevertheless conclusively decided by the judgment of this Court dated 24-11-1985 passed in Civil Revision No,148 of 1981. The same parties were arrayed in the earlier round of litigation the same objections as have been raised in this civil revision were urged but were repelled on sound grounds. None of the parties agitated against the order, dated 24-11-1985 of this Court and to that extent the respective rights of the parties have been finally determined. The objection that Mutation No,905 was ineffective being an unregistered sale transaction was correctly repelled on the principle of pari delicto. The petitioners had admittedly executed the Adhlapi agreement in favour of Imam Din respondent No,6. After entering into an oral sale with respondent No,1 through the impugned mutation, it is not permissible for the petitioners to turn around and claim any benefit under section 54 of the Transfer of 'Property Act, 1882. It is also idle for the petitioners to contend that the suit filed by Siraj Din was barred by time. Although, the Adhlapi agreement was executed on 9-4-1957 and mutation was attested on 4-4-1971, the respective rights of the parties were in contest amongst the parties themselves and were conclusively determined only through judgment of this Court dated 24-11-1985. It was only in resolution of the rights so determined that Siraj Din respondent No,1 acquired the cause of action to file the present suit.
12. Through this civil revision, the petitioners are assailing the concurrent findings of fact of two competent fora. Besides what has been urged as above mentioned, no illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Besides, the concurrent findings of fact are also supported by the judgment of this Court; dated 24-11-1985 passed inter se parties.
13. For what has been discussed above, there is no merit in this civil revision which is hereby dismissed. The parties to bear their jB own costs.