' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 26th January, 2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby R.S.A. No,74 of 1989 filed by respondents has been allowed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondents/defendants on 1st September, 1976 for declaration and permanent injunction, in the Court of Civil Judge, Jauharabad, on the averments that they are owners of the land, detail of which has been mentioned in the plaint, as the same has been purchased by them from the respondents/defendants vide Mutation No,123 attested on 24th February, 1973 and they are continuing in possession under the said sale. The suit was contested by the respondents/defendants by filing written statements, wherein they denied the claim of the petitioners/plaintiffs on the ground that they are in possession of the suit-land, which has been purchased by them from the Central overnment vide order, dated 24th May, 1976. They also denied in V written statements that they had sold the land to petiitoners/plaintiffs and described Mutation No,123 as fictitious and forged one. Learned trial Judge, after framing of issues, arising out of the pleadings of the parties and having gone through the evidence led by both the aides to substantiate their respective claims, dismissed the suit vide judgment, dated 10th July, 1979. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners/ plaintiifs preferred appeal before the Additional District Judge, Khushab, which was a owed vide judgment, dated 24th April, 1989, as a result whereof the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs was decreed. Respondents/defendants, feeling dissatisfied, filed R.S.A. Before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which has been allowed by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners/plaintiffs contended that Mutation No,123, dated 24th February, 1973, which has been incorporated into 'Jamabandi' Exh.P.4, if read with the oral evidence produced through P.Ws Muhammad Hayat (Lumbardar), Ghous Muhammad and Ali Muhammad (Patidars), it stands proved that petitioners/plaintiffs have established the sale of the property in their favour but learned High Court had disbelieved their such evidence which has occasioned a great miscarriage and injustice to them. Reliance has been placed by him upon the judgment in the case of Abdul Ahad v. Roshan Din PLD 1979 SC 890.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for caveator stated that mutation entry Exh.P.1 and Jamabandi Exh.P.4 had not been proved by the petitioners/plaintiffs by leading evidence from the Revenue Department to prove the contents of both these documents, as according to him, merely tendering of documents does not furnish a proof to accept it in evidence for the purpose of deciding the case.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence available on record, carefully. It may be noted that learned High Court did not rely upon the oral evidence furnished by the petitioners/plaintiffs to prove the sale of the disputed property in view of the statement so madeon behalf of petitioners/plaintiffs namely "the oral evidence be ignored and that the documents to be looked into". As far as the mutation entry Exh.P.1 which stood incorporated in the Jamabandi Exh.P.4, is concerned, it was not considered acceptable in view of the observation made in the judgments reported as Mst. Bibi Mukhtar v. Mst. Amrezen and another PLD 1968 Pesh. 169 and Muhammad and others v. Sardul PLD 1965 Lah.
472. In the latter judgment, it has been observed that "Patwari who had entered the mutation had to be summoned with the original record of proceedings, the Revenue Officer as also the Lumbardar and other witnesses identifying the transferors are also to be produced".
6. It is an admitted fact that in the instant case, original record of both the documents i.e, mutation entry Exh.P.1 and Jamabandi Exh.P.4 was not produced nor the 'Patwari' alongwith Revenue Officer of course, have been summoned. It is well-settled that mutation entry including the Jamabandi does not confer proprietary rights except raising . Rebuttal presumption in favour of their correctness and in case there was A no rebuttal of such entries but same were on the other hand supported by other evidence, person in whose favour such entries were made could rely upon them. PLD 1986 Quetta 198. Incidentally, in the instant case, except tendering all these documents, no other evidence to support the contents of the same was produced. As far as the judgment relied upon by the petitioners counsel in the case of Abdul Ahad (ibid) is concerned, it is distinguishable because both the parties, in that judgment, were bound by the conduct of their predecessor-in-interest as he appeared in the mutation proceedings and the pedigree was made in his presence and was also endorsed by him and acted upon in various ways viz. by incorporation in the 'Jamabandi' and by giving share in accordance with the same, whereas in the instant case, there is a dispute with regard to Mutation No,123 dated 24th February, 1973 and as far as the oral evidence produced by the petitioner to support its case is concerned, it has not been relied upon by the petitioner, as per the statement of their counsel, therefore, we are of the opinion that any of the documents, i.e, the mutation entry or Jamabandi, which has not been proved by leading primary or secondary evidence, to prove its contents in terms of Article 75/76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, could not be taken into consideration and for such reason, these documents will have no evidentiary value, therefore, we are of the opinion that learned High Court has rightly interfered in the judgment of learned Additional District Judge, dated 24th April, 1989.
' Thus for the foregoing reasons, we see no substance in instant petition, as such same is dismissed and leave declined.