' The brief facts out of which present revision petition arises are that the property in question owned by Messrs Resham Bibi, Kalsoom Bibi and Sughran Bibi, measuring 102 Kanals which was allegedly sold by them to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners (Ghulam Qadir) for consideration of Rs,1,00,000. The mutation was entered qua the sale on 13-4-1989. The statements of the aforesaid original owners were also recorded by the Revenue Officer. The Mutation No,120 was sanctioned by the competent authority on 12-6-1989 excluding the share of Mst. Resham Bibi measuring 27 Kanals, 6 Marlas. Mst. Resham Bibi had sold her share measuring 27 Kanals, 6 Marlas to Muhammad Hussain vide registered sale-deed dated 17-2-1992 for consideration of Rs,3,00,000.
The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed an appeal against the said mutation before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. The predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners had withdrawn the said appeal and filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge, Sialkot on 24-9-1992. The respondents filed written statement controverting the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- Issues
(i) Whether the exclusion of suit land from Mutation No,120 on 12-6-1989 is illegal, void, ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property mentioned in para. No,1 of the plaint as per contents of the plaint and subsequent sale-deed dated 17-2-1992 is ineffective upon his rights? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to bring this suit? OPPD
(iv) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(v) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own words and conduct to bring this suit? OPD
(vi) Whether the plaintiff has come in the Court with unclean hands? OPD
(vii) Whether the suit is improperly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD
(viii) Whether defendant No,1 has never received any consideration money from the plaintiff and thumb-impression of defendant No,1 was obtained on blank paper by the plaintiff in collusion with Patwari Halqa? OPD-1.
(ix) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of the parties? OPD
(x) Whether the Civil Court lacks of jurisdiction? OPD-2
(xi) Whether defendant No,2 is bona fide purchaser for value without notice? OPD-2
(xii) Relief.
' The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree, dated 20-4-1993. The respondents being aggrieved filed two appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, who accepted both the appeals by one consolidated judgment and decree, dated 11-2-1998.
Hence, the present revision petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that First Appellate Court erred in law to dismiss the suit of the petitioners while accepting the appeals on the basis of pleadings of the parties, which are not evidence. He further submits that Mst. Resham Bibi appeared before the Revenue Officer on 13-4-1989 and got recorded her statement. He further submits that the Revenue Officer at the time of sanctioning of mutation on 12-6-1989, erred in law to exclude the land of Mst. Resham Bibi in the said mutation without recording her statement in the absence or presence of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. He further submits that Mst. Resham Bibi did not enter appearance in the witness-box to prove her stand that she had not sold the land in question to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. He further submits that note was recorded by the Revenue Officer in violation of the mandatory provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act and rules framed thereunder. He further submits that the respondents did not bring on record any cogent evidence to show that Mst. Resham Bibi had not sold the property in question to the predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners. The documentary evidence produced by the respondents consisting of Exh.D.1 to Exh.D.15 does not reveal anything at all that Mst. Resham Bibi had not sold the land in question to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. He further submits that the learned trial Court had decided the case in favour of the petitioners after proper appreciation of evidence on record; whereas the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the learned trial Court without adverting to the reasonings of the learned trial Court, therefore, the impugned judgment of First Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that Mst. Kalsoom Bibi daughter of Mst. Resham Bibi appeared as P.W.1 in the witness-box, and stated that her mother (Mst. Resham Bibi) had sold the land in question to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, but this evidence was not scrutinized properly by the First Appellate Court and similarly, the First Appellate Court erred in law not to rely upon the statement of Mukhtar Ahmad Patwari D.W.2 and Muhammad Siddique Gardawar D.W.3, who had categorically stated in their statements that no statement of Mst. Resham Bibi was recorded by the Revenue Officer, therefore, the judgment of the First Appellate Court is the result of misreading and non-reading of the record.
3. Both learned counsel of respondents submit that Muhammad Ashraf D.W.4 (Attorney of Mst.
Resham Bibi) appeared in the witness-box and stated that Mst. Resham Bibi appeared before the Revenue Officer on 29-5-1989 and stated that she had not sold her share to the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners and on the basis of which Revenue Officer had mentioned note in the impugned mutation. They further submit that P.W.1 had accepted in her cross-examination that she had also not sold her share of land to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and her mother Resham Bibi had not sold the land in question to predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners.
She has also filed suit against father of petitioners that she has not sold the land to him. However, the suit was subsequently, had withdrawn on account to save her daughter's relationship with her husband, therefore, statement of P.W.1 Mst. Kalsoom Bibi, does not support the case of the predecessorin-interest of the petitioners. They further submit that the petitioners have not challenged the subsequent sale in favour of the respondents, therefore, the First Appellate Court was justified to reverse the findings of the learned trial Court with cogent reasons. They further submit that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner/Collector concerned against the impugned mutation, which had been withdrawn by him subsequently. Thereafter, he filed a suit, but this fact was not mentioned by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in the contents of the plaint. They further submit that First Appellate Court had given findings of facts against the petitioners after proper appreciation of evidence. They further submit that the learned counsel of the petitioners failed to point out any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court. They further submit that the revision petition is not maintainable as the respondents filed two appeals before the First Appellate Court against the judgment of the learned trial Court titled as "Muhammad Ashraf v.
Muhammad Bashir and others and Muhammad Bashir son of Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Bashir son of Ghulam Qadir and others", but the petitioners have filed one revision petition against the said impugned judgment, therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable.
4. The learned counsel of the petitioners in rebuttal submits that one revision petition is competent against one consolidated judgment, when two decrees are being challenged in one revision petition. In support of his contention, he relied upon Zaman Khan's case PLD 1957 (West Pakistan)
Pesh. 129 and Siraj Din's case 1992 SCM R 979.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. It is the prerogative of the First Appellate Court to reappraisal of the evidence at the time of deciding the appeals. The First Appellate Court had reversed the findings of the learned trial Court after reappraisal of evidence, which is inconsonance with law laid down by the Privy Council in N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar and others v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board of Madras PLD 1949 PC 26, which was followed by this Court in Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Syed Khalid Mehmood 1985 CLC 657. It is pertinent to mention here that the same was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court. It is admitted fact that the petitioners have not challenged the vires of subsequent sale in favour of respondents, therefore, the First Appellate Court was justified to reverse the findings of the learned trial Court, coupled with the facts that mutation was between the brothers and sisters and judgment of the First Appellate Court is in accordance with law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1. It is pertinent to mention here that the land in question was sold by the original owner to her real brother and Mutation No,120 was entered by the Revenue Official on 13-4-1989, which was attested subsequently by the Revenue Official in violation of mandatory provisions of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with rule 34 of the Land Revenue Rules. Both the real owners have expired and their successors-in-interest, are now litigants. Lambardar of the village attested the mutation. It is the duty and obligation of the petitioners to produce the Lambardar of the village to prove the contents of Mutation No,120, but the petitioners failed to produce him, meaning thereby the petitioners have withheld best evidence. It is settled principle of law that it is the duty and obligation of the petitioners-plaintiffs to prove their case on their own footing and could not take benefit of shortcoming of the respondents-defendants. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners failed to bring on record sufficient evidence to prove the sale and passage of consideration beyond any shadow of doubt which is condition precedent to prove the same in terms of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Shafi's case PLD 1986 SC C 519. The thumb-impression of the original owner Mst. Resham Bibi was also never proved. It is also admitted fact that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners admitted the subsequent sale in favour of the respondent-defendant (Muhammad Hussain). As is evident from Exh.D.13. The suit for pre-emption filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners against Muhammad Hussain respondent-defendant. It is also admitted fact the petitioner-plaintiff had not sought cancellation of sale-deed executed by the original owner in favour of Muhammad Hussain respondent-defendant through a registered sale-deed. It is settled principle of law that a registered document has sanctity attached to it, and stronger evidence, is required to cast aspersion on its genuineness, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mirza Muhammad Ashraf's case 1993 SCMR 642. It is also admitted fact that mutation in question did not reveal that the land, of the original owners had been sold by the original owners to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, therefore, the First Appellate Court was justified to give benefit to the respondents and bona fide purchaser in view of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and all the ingredients of the said section, are attracted in the present case, which is in accordance with law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- ' Maulana Riaz-ul-Hassan v. M. Ayyub Khan and others 1991 SCM R 2513 and Sahib Noor v. Feroz Khan 1992 M LD 2563.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this civil revision has no merit and the same is dismissed.