2004 PLP 1389 (SCMR)

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.

The petitioner seeks the grant of leave to appeal against judgment, dated 1-5-10-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No. 144-D of 1994.

2. The petitioner, and the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 were owners of land in different villages. They mutually entered into an oral agreement for exchange of their lands. Mutations No. 602 (Exh.P-12) and 1343 (Exh.P.1) of exchange of land were attested by the Revenue Officers. Subsequently Mutation No.1343 sanctioned in favour of the petitioner was reviewed by the Revenue Officer on 13-1-1965, on the ground that the original allotment of the evacuee land, of which the respondents were the vendees, had been cancelled. On the same basis Mutation No.602 in favour of the respondents was also cancelled by the Revenue Officer. Both the parties resorted to protracted litigation on the Revenue side the respondents filed Writ Petition No.1417 of 1983 which was dismissed on 4-9-1983. Thereafter, the respondents instituted a civil suit for declaration that they were the owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of exchange between the parties which was reflected by Mutation No.602 (Exh,P.12). The Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot vide judgment and decree, dated 3-6-1990 decreed the suit of the respondents which was reversed by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot vide judgment and decree, dated 19-12-1993 by accepting the appeal of the petitioner. The Civil Revision No. 144-D of 1994 of the respondents was accepted by the Lahore High Court vide impugned judgment, dated 15-10-1999. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned judgment of the Court was delivered by misreading and non reading of the evidence on record. It was next contended that this Court might be persuaded to make some observations to enable the petitioner to approach the relevant authorities for taking over the possession for the exchanged land from a 3rd party. It was lastly argued that since there was no transfer of possession as a consequence of the exchange of the land between the parties the transaction was invalid.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. All the Courts recorded concurrent findings of fact that valid agreement of exchange of land had taken place between the parties. The Appellate Court was persuaded by the fact of absence of transfer of possession which was not sufficient to invalidate the transaction of B exchange of land. There is no bar in law to the exchange of the land even if delivery of possession does not take place due to some reasons. In the present case the requirements of exchange as contained in section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 had been satisfied. The High Court also found that the allotment of the land, the subject matter of the exchange Mutation No.1343 in favour of the petitioner remained intact and the exchange of land had validly taken place. The findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment do not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of evidence on record so as to call for any interference by this Court. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

5. This petition has no merit and dismissed accordingly. S.A.K./M-801/S Petition dismissed.