' This judgment shall deal with and decide Regular Second Appeal No,44 of 1996 and Regular Second Appeal No,45 of 1996, as common controversy is involved therein.
2. Suit brought by Mst. Janat Bibi (predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 and 2) against Iqbal Begum (predecessor-in-interest of appellants/defendants) and Zulfiqar Ali (respondent No,3/defendant) for possession and cancellation of document was decreed by the learned. Civil Judge on 18-3-1990. Appeal filed thereagainst was also dismissed by the then learned Additional District Judge, Lahore by judgment and decree dated 30-1-1996, hence the present second appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the entire case of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 plaintiffs was structured upon partition documents of 1965 (Exh.P-1) and Mutation No,5520 dated 22-12-1972 (Exh.P.2) to show that the joint Khata was divided and partitioned between 1/2 share of Mst. Janat Bibi and 1/2 share for the deceased predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and other share-holders/co-owners of the Khata. It was also contended that Mst. Janat Bibi claimed the suit-land comprised in Plots Nos.51 and 51-A of the relevant scheme on the basis of above partition and bifurcation into numerous plots of the scheme including Plots No,51 and 51A, which, according to the plaintiffs, did not fall within the land sold to Zulfiqar Ali, respondent No,3 from whom Iqbal Begum (predecessor-in-interest of appellants) purchased suit-land through a sale-deed (Exh.P.15). And that the partition document (Exh.P.1) being on deficient stamp paper of Rs,2 and unregistered could not have been admitted in evidence and could not, therefore, have become the basis of transfer of interests and rights to the deceased plaintiff.
' Contrarily, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgments and decrees.
4. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record. The factual controversy involved in the present case was settled by the learned subordinate Courts through concurrent findings recorded in the impugned judgments and decrees. For the contextual purposes, the conclusions of facts rendered by the learned Additional District Judge in paras. 8 and 9 of impugned judgment and decree dated 31-1-1996 are reproduced, hereunder:--
8. "From the other side, D. W.1 Walia deposed that Mst. Iqbal Begum defendant No,1 is his real mother and he is her Special Attorney. He produced the deed of special power of attorney as Exh.D.1. He stated that the disputed property was purchased by defendant No,1 and the vendor had delivered the possession to her. He produced the sale-deed Exh.D.2 and stated that a mutation had also been entered. He produced copies of record of rights as Exh.D.3 and Exh.D.4. He deposed that they had constructed two rooms. He further stated that at the site there was no sanctioned scheme nor any plot had been carved out. He stated that they were not aware about the private partition effected between the co-sharers. He stated that no body had told them anything about the scheme and that they had satisfied themselves after enquiring from Patwari. He stated that vide sale-deed Exh.D.5 Saadat Begum had transferred the property to defendant No,2.
' The defendants have been unable to produce any convincing evidence to rebut the claim of the plaintiffs. Defendant No,1 admitted in the course of cross-examination that it is possible that Saadat Begum had sold to Zulfiqar All (defendant No,2) Plots Nos.44, 45 and 48. From the document Exh.D-5 which is a sale-deed executed by Mst. Saadat Begum in favor of Mian Zulfiqar Ali, it appears that she had sold Plots Nos.44, 45 and 48 to him. On the basis of the said document Zulfiqar All could not claim to be the owner of Plots Nos.51 and 51A. Consequently, he could not sell Plots Nos.51 and 51-A as he was not the owner of the said plots. There is no dispute that the property was previously joint between different owners and the same had the same Khasra numbers. However after the partition the said land was carved out in the form of plots and defendant No,2 had purchased Plots Nos.44, 45 and 48 from Saadat Begum and so he had the authority to dispose of the said plots but not Plots Nos.51 and 51-A. On the basis of the evidence produced by the plaintiffs it is clear that they are the owners of disputed Plots Nos.51 and 51-A. The defendants have not been able to produce any convincing evidence in rebuttal on this issue. The learned trial Court had rightly decided Issue No,4 in favor of the plaintiffs. As such the findings of the learned trial Court on this issue is accordingly affirmed."
5. The main thrust of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the partition document being on deficient stamp paper and unregistered could not be taken to have become basis of transfer of rights or interests in the land falling in the share of Mst. Janat Bibi; plaintiff and was not admissible in evidence and for that reason, mutation incorporating partition of the land was also illegal and cannot be read as evidence of rights of the parties. It has been denied by any of the parties that Exh.P.1 (partition documents family settlement) and Exh.P.2 (mutation) incorporating the division of land between original plaintiff Mst. Janat Bibi and other co- sharers, was acted upon; implemented and completed as back as in 1965, though the mutation was entered in 1972. None of the beneficiaries of this partition or family settlement ever disputed the document as inadmissible or invalid. The suit-land was purchased by Zulfiqar Ali through Exh.P.14 in 1967 and from whom the suit property was purchased by the appellants through sale- deeds of .
1967. The appellants were thus 3rd transferees of the suit property which admittedly was in the shape of plots (though in sale-deed it was described as part of a bigger Khasra No,) and the plots were under a scheme floated and incorporated even before the partition' was made between the original co-owners. Having taken land in shape of plots (though without mentioning the plots Nos.
In sale-deed), appellants cannot be allowed to turn around and challenge the entire scheme or partition document/family settlement on the basis of which respective rights of the co-owners/co- sharers were defined and they were put in possession. Appellants did not dispute the fact that they had been transferred land falling within the share of late Iqbal Begum and co-owners long time after the said partition/family settlement and induction of Iqbal Begum and others into their respective parcel of land through effective implementation of Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2. The grounds raised have thus become irrelevant after implement of said documents.
' Furthermore, Exh.P.1 was a document of family settlement which, in fact and in essence, implemented a pre-agreed scheme and division between the parties. Wherefore, I, am inclined to hold that this was not a kind of document which was compulsorily registrable and bore deficient stamp paper.
6. In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.