1. On 12-12-1985 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondent. In the plaint it was stated that the suit-land mentioned in the plaint is owned by the petitioners and that the respondent has nothing to do with it. Mutations 81 and 82 attested on 23-3-1956 for conferment of proprietary rights in favour of respondent were stated to be illegal and void. In his written statement the respondent stated that the said Mutations have been validly attested. The suit was stated to be barred by time.
2. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11-6-1988. A first appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal, on 13-9-1995.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the respondent was beneficiary of the impugned mutations it was for him to prove that they were valid and as such learned Courts below have acted without lawful authority while dismissing the suit and appeal of his clients. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that judgments and decrees of the learned Court below are fully supported by evidence on the record and law declared by Honourable Supreme Court on the subject. He relies on the case of Fateh Khan through his legal heirs v. Mst.
3. Begum Jan and others 1993 SCM R 135.
4. ' I have gone through the copies of the records appended with this civil revision, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the plaint as well as written statement in this case are not happily worded. Neither the plaint discloses as to what is wrong with the Mutations nor does the written statement disclose as to how they are valid. Be that as it may, evidence was led by both the parties. Now petitioners proceeded to produce Revenue Record pertaining to the suit-land and so did the respondent. The earliest record available is for the year 1894-95 which is Exh.P/1 and then following the entire record up to 1982-83 which is Exh.D/5. I find that the Revenue Record has been correctly read by both the learned Courts below. In this record Fazal son of Adal is recorded to be a "{{URDU TEXT}} " tenant under section 6 of the Tenancy Act, 1887. In Exh.P/4 for the year 1924-25 Ghulam Muhammad son of Fazal has been recorded as such tenant and in the later records Allah Ditta respondent son of said Ghulam Muhammad was recorded till such time that the said occupancy rights were extinguished and respondent was recorded as co-owner to the extent of 1/2 share in the suit-land pursuant to section 114 of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The Revenue Record produced by both the parties supports the entries in the said mutation and consequent entries of respondent as co-owner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent had not been in possession of the land. Similar arguments in similar circumstances came up for consideration before Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Baz and others v. Yar Muhammad 1981 SCM R 569. The Honourable Supreme Court observed as follow at page-573 of the report:-- "And, in the instant case, although the respondent said that the appellants and/or their predecessors-in-interest had abandoned the said land, this evidence is not supported by any corresponding entry in the Revenue Record showing that the occupancy rights in the said land had been surrendered by the appellants and/or their predecessor-in-interest. But the Revenue Records were corrected on the death of the respondent's father and similarly there are mutations in favour of the present appellants on the death of their predecessors-in-interest. In this background, the failure of the respondent to have the revenue entries corrected in order to show that the appellants had ceased to be occupancy tenants is fatal to his claim."
5. In the present case as well it is matter of record that evidence is available that at least for three generations the records were amended to enter the respondent, his father and his grandfather to be tenant in the suit-land. On the other hand no attempt was made over almost a century to get the Revenue Records corrected. In this view of the matter there being evidence on record that respondent continuously stood recorded as occupancy tenant and there being no plea or evidence on record that he or his predecessor-in-interest even abandoned tenancy within the meaning of section 38 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, no ground stands made out for interference with the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below within the ambit of section 115, C.P.C. This civil revision is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.