' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the High Court order, dated 7-4-1999 passed in R.S.A. No, 483 of 1970 setting aside the findings on Issues Nos.1 and 1A in a suit for Specific Performance of Contract filed by the respondent No,1 against respondent No,2, (since dead, survived by his, legal heirs) as well as the petitioner.
2. Ilam Din predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. (i) to (iv)agreed to sell the suit-land in favour of respondent No,1 vide agreement, dated 6-6-1965 for a consideration of Rs,3,400 out of which a sum of Rs,2,900 was received by him on two occasions. 11am Din himself contested the suit on the premises that the transaction was hit by the provisions of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After the conferment of proprietary rights on him vide Mutation No,41, dated 17-6-1969 he executed a registered conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner on 15-6-1967 transferring the suit-land for a sum of Rs,7.000 duly registered on 1-10-1967.
3. Learned counsel states that with the execution of the sale-deed possession of the suit-land was also handed over to the petitioner but for reasons not known to him, the, possession of the land was surrendered in favour of Ilam Din, who again transferred the land in favour of Farman All and Noor Elahi vide registered deed, dated 21-9-1982. Stance of the petitioner before the trial Court was that he was purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of prior agreement. Trial Court, however, dismissed the suit on the preliminary ground that the transaction in favour of the petitioner was hit by the provisions of section 19 of the Act. An appeal preferred from the judgment and decree of the trial Court also failed' leading to Regular Second Appeal, by the respondent No,1 before the High Court which has been accepted through the judgment impugned in this petition on the premises that in fact the transaction was not violative of the provisions contained in section 19 of the Act. It appears from the record and as stated by the learned counsel that proprietary rights were conferred on the respondent No,2 on 17-6-1967, therefore, we are in the agreement with the view taken by the High Court that the registered sale-deed executed on 15-7-1967 was free from any encumbrance or any legal impediment.
4. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the petitioner being bona fide purchaser of the snit-land for valuable consideration without notice of prior agreement this issue was neither decided by the High Court nor the case remanded to trial Court for decision on the issue raised by the petitioner. Learned counsel may be correct to this extent but we find from the record that despite a registered sale-deed for consideration in favour of the petitioner coupled with the delivery of A possession in his favour way back in 1967 he has been out of possession through out which renders the transaction in his favour as being shrouded in mystery. Learned counsel could not dispute the ground reality that the petitioner has not challenged the subsequent transaction of sale through the registered sale-deed, dated 21-9-1982 in favour of Noor Elahi and Farman Ali who are admittedly in possession of the suit-land in their own right.
5. Learned counsel attempted to justify his stance by contending that in fact his client has challenged the subsequent mutation before the Revenue Authorities but we are of the considered view that mutation entries in the Record of Rights are maintained for fiscal purposes and do not decide the question of title finally. At any event, such entries do not confer right of ownership to property. Furthermore, Revenue Authorities might be able to rescind and revoke the mutation entries wrongly entered, fn law they are not empowered to annul and set aside a registered sale- deed which has far greater value and weight. Petitioner either did not obtain possession from Ilam Din or on counsel's own statement having surrendered vacant possession of the land in favour of the vendor has virtually lost his right, interest and title to the land for which he owes an explanation.
Learned counsel was completely unaware of the background of parting, with possession of land allegedly given to the petitioner at the time of sale. He has been, unable to account for this act of divesting the petitioner of physical possession of the land which alone tends to show that the conduct of the petitioner has never been above board. It is rather short of being a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration disentitling him to the exercise of equitable discretion in his favour. In our view, even if the order of the High Court was modified by remanding the case to the trial Court for decision on issue No,4 it would be only of academic value as right, interest and title to properties acquired by Noor Elahi and Farman Ali has not been challenged before a competent Court of law and the document of sale in favour of the petitioner would be of no value higher than a simple piece of paper. The whole transaction in our view appears to be shrouded in mystery and there appears to be something wrong at the root of the cause.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this petition which is wholly misconceived and without any merit which is accordingly dismissed.