On 22-1-1985 respondents Nos.1 to 4 filed a suit against the petitioners and respondent No.5 for declaration that they are owners and in possession of the suit-land, the petitioners have got no concern with the same, order of petitioner No. 2 dated 8-2-1983 whereby land was transferred from T.D.A. To petitioner No.3 (Department of Housing and Physical Planning) is illegal, against facts and Mutation No.52 attested on 9-9-1984 whereby land including the suit--land was transferred from T.D.A. To petitioner No.3 is also illegal, against facts and is ineffective on their rights. By way of consequential relief it was prayed that the petitioners be perpetually restrained from interfering with their possession over the said land.
2. Precisely the case of respondents Nos.1 to 4 according to their plaint was that land described in the head-note of the plaint was allotted to them by T.D.A. By way of their right of return; proprietary rights therein were conferred on them and their aforesaid ownership to the extent of land described in portion "" of the head-note regarding Khata No. 12 was accordingly incorporated in the Jamanbandi for the year 1977-78, that vide Mutations Nos.6 and 7 both attested on 3-7-1978 respondents Nos.2 and 3 had also become owners of land other than the suit--land but the aforesaid mutations were not incorporated in the Jamabandi.
3. About two months prior to the institution of the suit they had learnt from the Patwari Halqa that part of the aforesaid land described in portion " of the head---note in Khata No. 19 in, alongwith other land was transferred by the order of respondent No.2 to respondent No.3.
4. It was also alleged that vide the aforesaid order land which was transferred from T.D.A. To respondent No.3 was more than the ownership of T.D.A. Hence for the said reason also the order of transfer was void and consequently mutation made in pursuance of the aforesaid order was also void.
5. The suit was contested by the petitioners. After framing necessary issues and recording evidence it was dismissed by the trial Court on 6-12-1993. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed an appeal against that judgment/decree which was accepted by A.D.J., Muzaffargarh on 13-3-1996.
6. In this civil revision the aforesaid judgment/decree of the Appellate Court is assailed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 inter alia on the grounds that the impugned judgment is not only based on gross non-reading and misreading of evidence but is also the result of erroneous assumption of facts.
7. Revision petition is opposed by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
8. Arguments heard. Petition and its annexures perused.
9. Suit-land is described in the head-- note of the plaint in two portions viz. "" pertaining to Khata No. 12 and "" relating to Khata No. 19 min. Case of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) was that the said land was allotted/adjusted in their favour against their right of return by the T.D.A. (respondent No.5). Virtually no evidence was produced on record in support of the said assertion.
Only three P. Ws. Were produced. Testimony of P.W.3 one of the respondents/plaintiffs was entirely irrelevant as it related to Mutations Nos.6 and 7, attested on 3-7-1978 which according to para. No. 1 of the plaint relate to land other than the suit--land which was neither subject-matter of the suit nor in respect of which any declaration was sought.
The other two P.Ws. Viz P.W.2 Muhammad Tufail and P.W.3 Abdul Aziz admitted during their cross- examination that whatever was stated by them in their examination-in-chief was heard by them.
They said that they had heard that the plaintiffs (respondents Nos.1 to 4) had purchased the suit- land. Their evidence being hearsay was inadmissible.
Nothing was said by any of the P. Ws. In support of the assertion that land transferred from T.D.A.
(respondent No.5) to the Department of Housing and Physical Planning was more than that which was owned and possessed by T.D.A. No documentary evidence in that regard was produced on record.
10. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 (plaintiffs) had placed on record documentary evidence comprising of Khasra Girdawari Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2 copies of mutations Nos.6 and 7 Exh.P.6 and Exh.P.7 respectively and copies of Jamabandis Exh.P.8 and Exh.P.9.
11. Presumption of truth is not attached to entries in the Khasra Girdawaris. Mutations Nos.6 and 7 respectively Exh.P.6 and Exh.P.7 did not relate to the suit-land as according to the contents of the plaint it related to some other land. The said documents were, therefore, irrelevant. Copies of Jamanbandis Exh.P.8 and Exh.P.9 relate to the portion of suit-land in Khata No.12 shown in portion "" in the head-note of the plaint regarding which there is no allegation that the said land was transferred in favour of Housing and Physical Planning. The aforesaid allegation was with respect to the portion of land specifically mentioned in portion "" of the head-note of the plaint and the aforesaid Jamanbandis Exh.P.8 and Exh.P.9 do not relate to the aforesaid land shown in portion "" which is in Khata 19 min, regarding which declaration and permanent injunction was sought.
12. Although presumption of correctness is attached to the entries in Jamabandi but the same is rebuttable. It is also well-settled that entries in Jamabandis do not operate to create or extinguish any right or title. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) had filed suit for declaration of their title regarding land which was denied by the petitioners hence the aforesaid respondents (plaintiffs) were required to prove their title. Mere entry of their name in the column of ownership regarding land described in portion "" was not sufficient to establish their title. Absolutely nothing was produced to show that the suit-land was allotted/adjusted in their favour by the T.D.A.
13. From Exh.D-1 viz. Notification dated 3-2-1971, it was proved that in 1971 when T.D.A. Was dissolved, its entire staff and, property including the land in question was placed under the administrative control and disposal of Communications and Works Department (predecessor of Housing and Physical Planning Department) hence after 3-2-1971 there was no question of allotment/ adjustment of the said land against right of return by the T.D.A. Neither in the plaint nor in the evidence it was disclosed by the plaintiffs as to when the aforesaid land was allotted/adjusted in their favour.
14. No evidence was produced on record to prove that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 or the mutation of land in favour of respondent No.3 was against facts and illegal.
15. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Appellate Court was not at all clear as to what the case of the plaintiffs (respondents Nos. 1 to 4) was.
16. In ppra.2 of the judgment the learned Appellate Court while narrating facts of the plaint observed that the plaintiffs had purchased the impugned property. In para. No.4 of the said judgment at page 3 the Appellate Court has given a finding that the property was never acquired by the T.D.A. And that the property could only be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act after paying compensation to the owners which had not been done, therefore, the appellants were still owners of the suit property.
17. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) had themselves claimed ownership through T.D.A. By way of right of return which implied that property was acquired by T.D.A. It was nobody's case that land was not acquired by T.D.A.
18. The impugned judgment was rendered by the learned Appellate Court without adverting to the plaint, written statement and the evidence available on record and on erroneous assumption of facts.
19. As stated hereinbefore respondents Nos.1 to 4 (plaintiffs) had utterly failed to prove their case, it was virtually a case of no evidence and merited outright dismissal.
20. Findings given and observations made by the learned Appellate Court are, therefore, fanciful, not based on evidence and reasons given in support of the findings are neither plausible nor reasonable. The impugned judgment can rightly be termed as perverse. The Appellate Court had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction not only illegally but also with material irregularity. The impugned judgment is, therefore, not sustainable which is set aside and order of the learned trial Court is restored with the result that suit of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) stands dismissed.
21. This civil revision is accepted. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 shall bear the costs throughout.