' Respondents i,e, the legal representatives of deceased Rahmat Ali, filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the petitioners. The respondents-plaintiffs claimed ownership of land measuring 1 Kanal, 15 Marlas in Khasra No,206 of Village Nat through an exchange with Hakim deceased (predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.5 and 6/defendants No,3 and 3(a) in the suit) to whom Rehmat deceased gave land measuring 2 Kanals in Khasra No,72 of Village Rajpura. The exchange was pleaded to have been effected on the basis of an oral agreement during consolidation proceedings, but respondents-plaintiffs claimed that the same was wrongly mutated by the petitioners in connivance with the revenue-consolidation staff alongwith number of. Other mutations listed in the plaint thereby adversely affecting the ownership rights of the respondents-plaintiffs acquired through exchange. And those respondents-plaintiffs sought decree for declaration qua the said mutations as well on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation and deception alongwith a decree for declaration of their ownership rights on land measuring 1 Kanal and 15 Marlas located in Khasra No,206. It was also claimed by respondents-plaintiffs that at the time of exchange possession was transferred to their predecessor-in-interest Rehmat deceased, who continued to remain in cultivating possession of the said land and on his death the respondents-plaintiffs acquired the ownership as well as possession. Perpetual injunction was also sought.
2. Contrarily, petitioners as defendants contested the claim and case of the respondents-plaintiffs.
The learned trial Court framed eight issues out of which Issue No,3 regarding limitation and Issue No,6 regarding respondents-plaintiffs' claim to ownership and possession of suit land became the core issues in contest between the parties. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Narowal through judgment and decree dated 19-3-1996 held the suit to be time-barred and respondents-plaintiffs not entitled to suit land and thus dismissed the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs.
3. On appeal by respondents, the learned District Judge, Narowal through judgment and decree dated 25-2-1997 reversed the findings of the learned Senior Civil Judge, holding respondents- plaintiffs as owners in possession of the suit land, decreed the suit for being within time as well, hence the present revision petition by the petitioners, who were defendants in the suit.
4. Learned counsel for the parties read and re-read the evidence to support the contentions of their respective clients.
5. I have examined the record and have also considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Perusal of the judgments of the Courts below show that the learned Courts below have drawn their respective conflicting conclusions by making reference to statements of witnesses relevant to the said conclusions only. I re-examined the entire evidence on record to assess the claim of the respondents-plaintiffs to ownership of the suit land and acquisition of knowledge of alleged fraudulent mutations challenged in the suit. Respondent No,1 Maqsood Ahmad (i,e,) one of the plaintiffs appeared as P.W.1. He deposed that 16/17 years ago, the suit land was acquired by their predecessor-ininterest Rehmat Ali from Hakim Ali in exchange alongwith possession and that they constructed Makan/Haveli and planted trees on the suit land. He also deposed that the impugned transactions were fraudulently made by the petitioners-defendants and the same were effected without participation and knowledge of the respondents-plaintiffs and were challenged immediately upon acquisition of knowledge. He denied all the questions and suggestions that no exchange was effected by Rehmat Ali deceased with Hakim Ali and that respondents-plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. Instead he repeatedly stated in the cross-examination that they were in possession of the suit land since about 17/18 years as a result of an exchange, as owners and they had come to know of the impugned mutations only recently. P.W.2 i,e, Muhammad Tufail also made identical statement to support the contents of the plaint and stand of the respondents- plaintiffs.
6. Petitioners as defendants presented Muhammad Rafique D.W.1, .Allah Ditta, D.W.2, Sabir Ali D.W.3 and Muhammad Khan defendant as D.W.4. D.W.1 Muhammad Rafique in his cross-examination admitted exchange of land between Rehmat Ali and Hakim Ali and also stated that Rehmat Ali deceased had taken about 1-3/4 Kanals from Hakim Ali, but stated that he did not know about particular Khasra No, of land transferred to Rehmat Ali deceased. D.W.2 in his deposition stated that he had no knowledge of exchange between Rehmat Ali deceased and Hakim Ali deceased, but admitted that Rehmat Ali had not gone to Tehsildar with them for any mutations. Even in his cross- examination he only pleaded lack of knowledge about exchange between Rehmat Ali deceased- and Hakim Ali deceased. D.W.3 claimed to be general attorney of Hakim Ali etc. And admitted that exchange was effected between Rehmat Ali and Hakim Ali and the parties had taken possession of the land exchanged by them. He also pleaded lack of knowledge about Khasra numbers of the land exchanged between the parties. He also stated that at the time of impugned mutations, he was not present but he came to know of the same from others. Similarly, Muhammad Khan defendant while appearing as D.W.4 also pleaded lack of knowledge about Khasra numbers of the exchanged land.
7. From the above reproduction of the relevant parts of the statements of witnesses led by the parties, it is evident that none of the D. Ws. Appearing on behalf of petitioners-defendants deposed about the knowledge of the respondents-plaintiffs regarding impugned mutations. Instead P. W.1 and P.W.2 both clearly and categorically stated that the impugned mutations were never came to their knowledge and it was only upon acquisition of the knowledge that the suit was filed.
Petitioner-defendants failed to elicit any response from P.Ws. During cross-examination helpful to the case of petitioners-defendants. Cross-examination of P.Ws. Is also conspicuous by absence of a suggestion from the petitioners-defendants regarding knowledge of the P.Ws., about impugned mutations. It is thus clear that suit of the respondents-plaintiffs could not have been dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge as barred by time and the learned District Jude, Narowal was justified in holding that suit of the respondents-plaintiffs was within time. Similarly, statements of P.
W.1 and P.W.2 regarding exchange effected between Rehmat Ali and Hakim Ali deceased of the suit land and its continued possession since the time of consolidation about 16/17 years prior to the suit by Rehmat Ali deceased and thereafter by respondents, are consistent, credible, confidence- inspiring and without any ambiguity, confusion or contradictions. Even in the cross-examination their replies were unshakably in support of the contents of the plaint. Petitioners as defendants were unable to get any re-enforcement to their case through responses of the P.Ws. In the cross- examination. Contrarily defendant No,1 Muhammad Rafique admitted exchange between Rehmat Ali and Hakim Ali deceased of land measuring 1-3/4 Kanals which obviously was the suit land.
Interestingly, D.W.2 and D.W.3 only pleaded lack of knowledge regarding exchange of the suit land between Hakim Ali and Rehmat Ali deceased but did not out rightly deny the transaction of the exchange of the suit land. D.W.3 Sabir as general attorney of Hakim Ali and Shafee admitted that he was not present during the proceedings of impugned mutations before the relevant authorities but came to know of the same through others. He also pleaded lack of knowledge regarding exchange of the suit land measuring 1 Kanal and 15 Marlas with that of 2 Kanals between Rehmat Ali and Hakim Ali. Pleading lack of knowledge about a fact does not at all disprove a fact. Contrarily it lends support to the case of opposite side by absence of denial.
8. From the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Narowal on 25-2-1997, decreeing the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs in their favour. As such, there is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.