MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, Ghulam Rasool etc. The petitioners , through the filing of the present revision petition, have called in question judgment and decree. Dated 9.1.1997, whereby the learned Addl.
District Judge accepted the appeal, filed by .Mst. Ghaurian Bibi, the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents, and decreed her suit, while setting aside the judgments and decree dated 4.2.1996; passed by the learned Civil Judge, through which he dismissed Mst. Ghaurian Bibi's suit for declaration and injunction.
2. Mst. Ghuarian Bibi, the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, thereby challenging Mutation No. 426, dated 13.3.1984, favouring the petitioners. It was asserted in the plaint that Mst. Ghaurian Bibi inherited the land in question measuring 18 kanals, 5 marlas, that the same was leased out to the petitioners, who were paying the lease money to her, that in the year, 1993, they stopped paying the lease money and thereupon the plaintiff came to know that the petitioners got sanctioned mutation of sale bearing No. 426, dated 13.3.1981, in their favour, which was forged and based on fraud. The case pleaded by her in the plaint was that she neither appeared before the authorized Revenue Officer, nor received any consideration nor affixed her thumb-impression. The petitioners/defendants contested the suit by way of filing the written statement, thereby raising legal and factual controversies and claiming therein that they have become owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of the impugned mutation, which was lawfully sanctioned by the Revenue Authorities, as the plaintiff herself appeared before the Revenue Officer after having received the consideration and the .
Mutation was sanctioned in her presence. The learned Trial Court framed six issues recorded the evidence of the parties and ultimately dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 4.2.1996.
Mst. Ghaurian Bibi filed an appeal before the appellate forum, and her appeal was accepted by the learned Addl. District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 9.4.1997, hence the present revision petition.
3. !t may be noted here that during the pendency of the revision petition. Mst. Ghaurian Bibi, the original respondent/plaintiff died and the present respondents were impleaded in the present petition in the capacity of her legal heirs.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while supporting the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial. Court, has submitted that Mst. Ghuarian Bib herself sold the land in question to the petitioners, she received the consideration price of Rs. 14,000/- and thereafter impugned sale mutation was sanctioned entered in the presence of the plaintiff. He has further submitted that no supporting evidence was produced by the plaintiff, except her own statement, in order to prove that the mutation of sale was forged and that the petitioners produced voluminous evidence on record to prove that the mutation of sale was legal. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that Mst. Ghaurian Bibi was an illiterate lady and her simple denial about the sanctioning of sale mutation is sufficient to shift the burden of proof upon the other party, who has failed to prove that mutation of sale was valid and legal.
5. Upon the examination of the impugned judgment, I find that before the first Appellate Court, only issues Nos. 2 and 4 were pressed. Mst. Ghaurian Bibi, the plaintiff, appear herself in the witness-box and categorically denied about the sale of the land in dispute to the petitioners, receipt of the consideration price and the attestation of impugned mutation of sale in her presence. In these circumstances, the onus to prove , that the mutation of sale was legal and valid, shifts to the petitioners who claim themselves to be the beneficiaries of said mutation. There is no denial of the fact on record that Mst. Ghaurian Bibi was an old, illiterate and "Pardansheen;' lady. Even if it is admitted for the sake of arguments that the mutation was attested in her presence, it is not discernible from the available record as to whether independent advice was available to the plaintiff at the time of attestation of mutation.. Additionally, the learned Addl. District Judge has taken into consideration the mutation of sale (Ex.P3) and rightly refused to acknowledge the said document as valid and legal. Upon the examination of the said document, it does not show as to whether Mst. Ghaurian Bibi was present at the time of entering the impugned sale mutation and that she was identified_ by Tehsildar/Lamberdar.
6. From the perusal of the evidence on record, I find that the petitioners have not been able, to prove from the cogent and independent evidence that the mutation of sale was legal lady and with consideration inasmuch as it has not been proved that. Mst. Ghaurian Bibi received the consideration price or she consented for the sale of land.
7. Upon the examination of the impugned judgment, I find that the learned Addl. District Judge adverted to every aspect of the case, rightly decided the issues, agitated before him, and rendered a reasoned judgment, which is not open to exception. The learned Addl. District Judge rightly decided issues Nos. 2 and 4, findings whereof do not call for any interference. The findings rendered by the learned Addl. District Judge in the impugned judgment, as compared to the judgment of the learned Trial Court, are not only in accordance with the record of the case but also in consonance with the law on the subject,, thus, the impugned judgment is maintained.
8. I have also examined the judgment rendered by the learned Trial Court and find that the same is not sustainable in law. To my mind, the said judgment, as compared to the learned lower Appellate Court's judgment, suffers from grave legal errors, which have been rectified by the learned Appellate Court by reversing' the findings of the learned Trial Court and substituting its own findings; which are supported by reasons, I have *lot been persuaded by the learned counsel for the petitioners to restore the judgment of the learned Trial Court, which, to my mind, has rightly been reversed by the learned lower Appellate Court.
9. In my view as the impugned judgment is neither contrary to the evidence on record nor in violation of the principle of administration of justice, thus the judgment of the learned Appellate Court should ordinarily be preferred. If any case is needed, judgments reported as Mir Muhammad alias Miral v. Ghulam Muhammad (PLD 1996 Kar. 202), Hamuddin through legal heirs v. Syed Sarfraz Hussain through legal heirs and 5 others (1999 CLC 313) and Aasa v. Ibrahim (2000 CLC 500) can be referred.
10. In the above perspective, I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment is legal, unexceptionable, apt to the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, thus, the same is maintained.
11. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present revision petition is devoid of merits, hence dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. .