2007 PLP 1543 (YLR)

SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.

This civil revision is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 14-3-2006 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 21-11-2005 was dismissed.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this revision are that the predecessor-in?-interest of the present petitioners filed a suit for declaration challenging the mutation of sale dated 5-9-2000 in favour of the respondents. It was alleged in the plaint that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners on account of his annoyance with his sons agreed to sell the property in dispute to the present respondents for a total consideration of Rs.15,00,

000. In this behalf he went to the Patwari and Tehsildar and the mutation of sale was sanctioned in favour of the respondents on the commitment of the respondents that the consideration would be paid thereafter. It was contended in the plaint that consideration has not been paid, hence, the mutation for sale was a result of fraud and ineffective against the rights of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and liable to be declared as such. The suit was contested by the respondents who, inter alia, contended that the consideration was paid and not only the predecessor-in?interest of the petitioners but his sister and brother-in-law also sold their property to the respondents. On the divergent pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Whereafter evidence both oral and documentary was led by both the parties. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 21-11-2005 dismissed the suit. Whereafter an appeal was filed which failed to find favour and was dismissed vide the impugned appellate judgment and decree dated 14-3-2006.

3. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended with this petition perused.

4. It is clear and obvious from the - contents of the plaint and the statement of the plaintiff as a witness that the appearance of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners before the Patwari and the Tehsildar for the purpose of sanction of the mutation of sale in favour of the respondents is not disputed. It was the case of the plaintiff that the agreed consideration was not paid. Furthermore, the concerned Patwari and the Tehsildar appeared as D.Ws. and confirmed the attestation and sanction of the mutation in favour of the respondents. The Tehsildar categorically stated that he had confirmed from the plaintiff about the receipt of the consideration before the sanction of the mutation. D.W.2 and D.W.3 also entered the witness-box and stated that the consideration was paid in their presence. It is also on the record that a few days after the sanction of the disputed mutation the sister and brother-in-law of the plaintiff sold their respective land to the respondents and for such purpose they were identified by the plaintiff. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence the trial Court returned a finding that the mutation in question was legal and valid and with consideration. Furthermore, that the action of the plaintiff of facilitating the sale of further land to the respondents was not the conduct by a person who had been defrauded a few days earlier by the said respondents. The said finding has been affirmed in appeal. There is a concurrent finding of fact. The learned counsel at the bar has ' been unable to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any other illegality. The findings of the two Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The learned counsel attempted to seek reappraisal of evidence which is not possible in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. No exception can be taken to the impugned judgments and decrees. This civil revision is misconceived and is hereby dismissed. F.B./M-53/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.