' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---The petitioners before us filed a suit in the Court of a learned Civil Judge at Rahim Yar Khan can 23-11-1982 claiming therein that they were the heirs of one Allah Diwaya. They had further claimed that one Mst. Mehran Bibi, inter alia, owned 16 Kanals of land; that on 22-2-1957 the said Mst. Mehran Bibi executed an agreement in favour of Allah Diwaya with respect to the sale of her said land; that Mst. Mehran Bibi declined to honour the said agreement which compelled the said Allah Diwaya to file a suit for specific performance in the Court of the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan and that on 5-11-1970 the said Mst. Mehran Bibi submitted an application before the said learned Trial Judge admitting the claim of Allah Diwaya and agreeing to the passing of a decree in the terms prayed by Allah Diwaya. It was further averred through this suit that in pursuance of this application, a decree was accordingly passed on that very day i.e, 5-11-1970. The petitioners had further alleged through this suit which has culminated in this petition before us that despite the passing of the above mentioned decree on 5-11-1970, Mst.
Mehran Bibi executed a registered Tamleek Nama on 25-6-1980 alienating her entire property in favour of her daughter Mst. Amna Bibi on the basis of which Tamleek Nama, a mutation bearing No,209 was made in the Revenue Record on 22-7-1980. The petitioners complained through the said suit that this was a fraudulent act on the part of Mst. Mehran Bibi who stood divested of all powers over the 16 Kanals of land in question after passing of the above-noticed decree, dated 15- 11-1970 and consequently prayed that a decree be passed in their favour and against the defendants/respondents declaring that Mutation No, 209, dated 22-7-1980 and the Tamleek Nama, dated 25-6-1980 were illegal in view of the decree, dated 5-11-1970 and resultantly prayed for a permanent injunction restraining any interference with he ownership and possession of the petitioners over the suit-land or from, in any manner, acting on the above mentioned. Mutation No,209 or the Tamleek Nama, dated 25-6-1980.
2. Through a judgment, dated 7-11-1985, the learned trial Judge decreed the said suit which judgment and decree was however reversed by a learned Additional District Judge at Rahim Yar Khan through his judgment, dated 2-4-1986. The said appellate judgment was maintained by the Lahore High Court through a judgment, dated 3-7-2001 passed in Civil Revision No,137 of 1986.
Hence this petition.
3. Mst. Mehran Bibi had entered the witness-box during the course of the trial of the present suit.
She categorically declared that she had never entered into any agreement with Allah Diwaya for the sale of the land in question in his favour; Allah Diwaya had never filed any suit against her with respect to the land in question; that she had never appeared in any Court in connection with any such alleged suit; that no decree had ever been passed with respect to the said land and that Karim Bakhsh plaintiff-petitioner might have produced some other woman to secure a false decree. She had further added that Allah Diwaya was a tenant under her and reiterated that she had never given any consent for the passing of any decree in favour of the said Allah Diwaya.
Nothing was brought on record as to when Allah Diwaya had filed the above mentioned earlier suit against Mst. Mehran Bibi nor was any copy of any such plaint brought on record of this case.
Neither in the earlier alleged suit which had resulted in the alleged earlier decree, dated 5-11-1970 nor in the present suit was the alleged agreement, dated 22-2-1957 ever brought on record. No effort was made in the present suit to prove the application (Exh.P.4) which had been allegedly filed by Mst. Mehran Bibi in the earlier suit admitting the claim of Allah Diwaya. From a copy of this application which is available at page 27 of this paper book, it appears that the same had not been filed through any advocate and it was one Syed Muhammad Ibrahim petition-writer who had drafted the said application. This petition-writer does not appear to have been produced in Court to prove the said application. It is also strange that having secured a decree on 5-11-1970, neither Allah Diwaya nor his successors ever got any sale-deed registered or any mutation made reflecting the decree in question.
4. We have heard the learned counsel at some length; have considered his submissions in the light of the available record and find that the appellate and the revisional judgments were unexceptionable.
5. In this view of the matter this petition is dismissed. Leave refused.