1990 PLP 761 (SCMR)

Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st October, 1989. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners from the order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench dated 30‑11‑1986, whereby civil revision of the respondents against the judgment of Additional District Judge‑II, Rahimyar Khan dated 3‑4‑1983 was accepted. Raban the predecessor‑in‑interest of the plaintiffs/petitioners is alleged to have purchased 15 kanals 12‑1/2 marlas land by means of a sale‑deed dated 4‑4‑1919 from Hamal and another the predecessors‑in‑interest of the defendants/respondents. Raban remained in possession of the disputed land and there are 3 mutations No.1140, 1141 and 1159 entered of the land in dispute. Subsequently, vide all the three mutations the land in dispute was transferred to different transferees. Mutation No.1141 is in respect of a gift made by Shahru in favour of Wali Dad defendant/respondent on 27‑6‑1969 and Mutation No.1140 was got sanctioned by Allah Wadhhaya, Allah Diwai and Wali Dad defendants/ respondents in favour of Hamal on 30‑1‑1970 while Mutation No.1159 is also of sale in favour of Hamal from Ibrahim Pandhi, Haleem, Mst.Chuttan, Khuda Bakhsh and Mst.Khanam, defendants/respondents. The plaintiffs/petitioners brought a suit for declaration being owners in possession of the land in dispute and assailed the validity of the above 3 mutations. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Appeal thereof was accepted and the suit of the petitioners was decreed by the District Court in their favour. Revision of the defendants/respondents before the High Court was accepted in which only the point of limitation was urged that the disputed land is a part of joint Khata wherein the petitioners were the co‑owners. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the only point for consideration before this Court is whether the sale‑deed EX.P.1 executed on 4‑4‑1919 is a genuine document. So far as the execution of the said document is concerned, the learned High Court after thorough appraisal of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the deed itself appeared to be of doubtful authenticity and the trial Court after recording the evidence on issue No.5, pertaining to this point has rightly decided it in favour of the defendants /respondents. It is a matter of record that the suit land was purchased by Raban from the predecessor‑in‑interest of the defendants/respondents. The suit land in the 3 mutations is with regard to the 11 kanals 3 marlas and it is stated that still 4 kanals was left out of dispute. Under the circumstances, we hardly find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed. H.B.T./G‑257/S Petition dismissed.