' On 31-7-1974 Behead Khan the late hasband of respondent No,1 filed a suit against respondents Nos.2 to 9. In the plaint it was stated that Haider Khan was owner of suit-land measuring 39 Kanals, 13 Marlas comprising Khasras Nos.1247, 1245, 2217/1246 and 2215/1237 (these are previous numbers of the suit-land). The said land was sold by Haider Khan to one Muhammad Khan vide Mutation No,2851 sanctioned on 2-3-1942, The said plaintiff filed a pre-emption suit which was decreed on 18-5-1943. The decree was executed and possession was delivered of the entire suit-land. Mutation No,3076 was sanctioned on 27-3-1948, Except Khasra No,1247 the'other land was in possession of the previous owner while the said Khasra No, was recorded in possession of Ahmad and Ghulam Muhammad as tenants-at-will under the owner. The defendants in the case are successors of the said persons. It was then stated that whereas the original sale made by Haider Zaman was with share of Shamlat, in the Mutation No,3076 it came to be recorded as without share of Shamlat.
Similarly in the column of possession of Khasra No,1247 the words " {{URDU TEXT}} " were recorded.
These entries were stated to be illegal and unauthorized. The said defendants then got themselves entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1952-53 as occupancy tenants of Khasra No,1247 and non- occupancy tenants of Khasras Nos.1245 and 1246. On the basis of said entries, pursuant to, amendment in Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, Mutation No,4070 was attested on 30-9.1957 whereby the said defendants have been recorded as owners to the extent of 1/2 in Khasras Nos.1247, 1245 and 2217/1246. It was then stated that in the first week of June, 1974 the said defendants asserted title.
With these averments a decree for declaration was sought that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the said suit-land with share in Shamlat and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from interfering with his possession. In the alternate a decree for possession was sought, The suit was contested by the defendants in the suit who objected that the suit is barred by time. However, on merits the material contents of the plaint particularly the sale made by Haider Zaman and decretal of the suit filed by the said plaintiff were not denied. It was however, asserted that Ahmad and Ghulam Muhammad, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants in the suit, were occupancy tenants, in the entire suit-land. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 8- 6-1977. Against the said judgment and decree the defendants in the suit filed a- first appeal. This appeal was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, on 21-5-1980 who proceeded to dismiss the suit as being barred by time. Against this judgment and decree R.S.A.
No,778 of 1980 was filed but was dismissed as being incompetent on 18-12-1985. The plaintiff then filed Civil Revision No,385 of 1986 in this Court which was allowed vide judgment dated 10-11-1993.
The first appeal was sent back to the learned District Judge, Rawalpindi, for a fresh decision. This time the appeal was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, who dismissed the same on 2-10-1996.
2. Present civil revision has been filed by the petitioners who purchased some portion of the suit- land from the defendants in the suit during the pendency of the said R.S.A. And civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that his clients are bona fide purchasers and as such cannot be dispossessed. Further contends that the suit was barred by time. According to the learned counsel the limitation would start from the date of attestation of Mutation No,4070 i,e, 30- 9-1957 and suit having been filed beyond the period of 6 years prescribed in the Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the same would be barred by time. Learned counsel has nothing to say regarding the decision on merit of the case. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents on the other hand contends with reference to the judgment of this Court in the case of Allah Dad v.
Muhammad Ali and others PLD 1956 Lahore 245 that the entries were wrongly made showing the defendants in the suit, or their predecessors, occupancy tenant in the suit-land and once it is found that the entries have been unlawfully changed it shall be deemed that the earlier correct entries are continuing. Further contends with reference to the judgment in the cases of Muhammad Ali and 25 others v. Hassan Muhammad and 6 others PLD 1994 SC 245 and Mst. Rasul Bibi etc. v.
Manzoor Ahmad etc. 1985 CLC 2268 that mere adverse entries in the Revenue Record would not make period of limitation running against plaintiff.
4. I have gone through the copies of the records appended with this I A civil revision, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties have already noted above that learned counsel for the petitioners has not questioned the findings recorded by the learned Courts below to the effect that entries in Jarnabandi for the year 1952-53 showing the said predecessor-in-interests of the defendants as occupancy tenants were illegal. I have examined the evidence and I find that the learned Courts below have correctly read the evidence and findings recorded are in accordance with evidence on record. Coming to the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no denial that the petitioners proceeded to purchase the land during he pendency of the suit and proceedings arising out of it. The transactions in their favour are squarely hit by the principles of lis pendens as contained in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Nothing, therefore, turns on the said contention of the learned counsel. So far as the matter of limitation is concerned, the mere wrong entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1952-53 (Exh.P.5) or attestation of the mutation on 30-9-1957 (Exh.P.6) would not make the limitation start to run against the plaintiff in the suit. Above noted judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents fully support his said contention. No overt act is attributable to the defendants in the suit prior to the institution of suit. So far as the said mutation and said entries are concerned, as held by this Court in the said case of Allah Dad PLD 1956 Lahore 245 once it is found that the entries are wrong and have been unlawfully changed it shall be deemed that the old entries are continuing. I may note here that the Honourable Supreme Court has also endorsed the said view of this Court in the case of Nisri through L.Rs, and others v. Muhammad Sharif and others 1997 SCMR
338. Learned counsel then tried to argue that there is no evidence that the plaintiffs in the case had been in receipt of the rent from the said non-occupancy tenant. The contention is baseless. It is by now settled that mere non-payment of rent by tenant for any length of time would not change the nature of his possession.
5. For all that has been discussed above, this civil revision is found to be without any force and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.