On 22-11-1990 the petitioners alongwith respondent No, 6 filed _a suit against respondents Nos, 1 to
5. In the plaint it-was stated that the suit-land was owned by their father Anwar and was inherited by them as daughters; that they had never transferred the said land to their brother Allah Ditta but he managed to get the Mutation No,11 attested on 9-10-1967 of oral sale purported to have been made by the petitioners in favour of said brother. It was stated that they came to know about the said fact when respondents Nos, 1 to 5 filed another declaratory suit about 5 months before the institution of the suit. In their written statement it was asserted by respondents Nos, 1 to 5 that the land has been lawfully sold by the petitioners, respondent No, 6 and their sister Bakhan Bibi vide said mutation. Following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their word and conduct to file the suit? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
(4) Whether the plaint is insufficiently valued? If so, what is the correct valuation? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is false and vexatious, as such, the defendants are entitled to special costs?
OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit-land to the extent of their share and the mutation of Sale No,11 dated 9-101969 and on the basis the entries in the -Revenue Record are illegal. against facts and law, based on fraud, collusive and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiffs? OPD
(7) Relief.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28-6-1994. A first appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, holding Camp at Nankana Sahib on 13-10-1994.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that there is no evidence on record that the petitioners ever lawfully transferred the land in favour of their brother. According to the learned counsel the other sisters who supported respondents Nos, 1 to 5 had reasons to do so which .are apparent on the face of record and as such the mere fact that other sisters had supported the transaction cannot be taken to be evidence of the fact that the petitioners had transferred their land to their brother. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand argues that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned lower Courts would not be interfered with in this civil revision.
3. I have gone through the copies of the record appended with this civil revision, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Mutation No,11 is available on record as. Exh.P.2.
According to this documents the widow and 4 daughters of Anwar (including the petitioners) transferred their share to Allah Ditta son. of Anwar for consideration of Rs,10,000. Mutation was attested on 9-10-1969. An examination of the impugned judments show that what impressed the learned lower Courts was the fact that two out of 4 sisters had opted to support the transaction by entering witness-box. I may state here that Patwari D.W-3 and Revenue Officer D.W-2 stated in clear terms that ladies who appeared before them for entry and attestation of mutation were not known to them personally. Nothing much,' therefore, turns on the statement of said witness. Mst.
Bakhan is one of the sister who entered Witness-box as D.W.4. It appears that her statement could not be recorded on 7-9-1993 and she then entered the witness-box as D.W-5, on 25-1-1994. Now she proceeded to state that 4 sisters and their mother sold 1 sq. of land less by 5 Kanals. in, favour of Allah Ditta who paid them Rs:10,000. She says that amount was divided by the said four sisters. In her cross-examination stated that after the suit Mst. Maqsoodan Bibi (widow of Allah Ditta) betrothed her daughter Mehran Bibi to the son of Mst. Bibi the other sister. She then stated that although she is married but right from the start she had been living with her brother Allah Ditta and that land was .being jointly cultivated. She then admitted that Mohabbat is husband of Allan petitioner and is cultivating 2 Killas of land and is not paying anything to Allah Ditta or his widow.
She then stated that after the death of father, the land became joint and C remain joint and at that time Allah Ditta used to cultivate. She then states that Allah Ditta used to tell them that all the sisters are married and but the land remain, with him. Mst. Bibi the other sister appeared as D.W-9.
She made no secret of the reasons as to why she is supporting contesting respondents. She admitted as correct that she had joined hands with Maqsooda Bibi widow of Allah Dina. After getting the hand, of latter's daughter for her son alongwith 4/5 Acres of land learned lower Courts obviously failed to read the said evidence on record which makes testimony of die said two sisters interested. There is no other evidence in support of the mutation or sale evidenced by it. This is thus the case of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record and the impugned judgments and decrees cannot be sustained in this civil revision, which is accordingly allowed. Judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below are set aside and suit to the extent of present petitioners is decreed as prayed for by them. No order as to costs.