2006 PLP 1783 (YLR)

PARVEZ AHMAD, J.

The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that Mst. Nooran and others filed a suit for declaration against the present petitioner/defendant with the averments that after the death of Ghaman they along with the petitioner/defendant had become owners in possession of the property in accordance with their respective share, therefore, Mutation No.1781, dated 19-1-1972 in favour of the petitioner is against law and facts. The respondents/plaintiffs also claimed the relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from alienating the suit property. The suit was contested by the petitioner/defendant and the trial Court after framing of issues and recording of evidence dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 26-9-1995. The respondents/plaintiffs being aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed an appeal before the appellate Court from where the appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit filed by the present respondents/plaintiffs was decreed in their favour. With this background the petitioner/ defendant has filed the present revision petition to assail the legality and validity of the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with their assistance.

3. No doubt the facts admitted are that Ghuman died in the year 1971 while the alleged mutation was attested in the year 1972. There is nothing on record that the respondents/plaintiffs ever come into possession of the property or were ever paid any share of produce by the petitioner/defendant. There is nothing on record that the share of produce, if ever paid, was refused and that if so when the plaintiffs came to know of the alleged transaction. With this background it was incumbent upon the respondents/plaintiffs to prove the date of knowledge of this alleged fraudulent mutation. Even otherwise the mutation in question was admittedly attested in the year 1972 and the civil suit was brought by the respondents/plaintiffs on 8-12-1991, which was patently barred by limitation. With this background there was no material available with the Appellate Court to have passed the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs, as???????? such???? the impugned judgment suffers from illegality and material irregularity.

4. In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed, the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court dated 15-1-1996 is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 26-9-1995 is hereby restored/ maintained. There is no order as to costs. M.I./B-15/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.