1990 PLP 400 (SCMR)

Ch. Mazharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th August, 1989. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 12‑1‑1986, whereby civil revision of the petitioners was dismissed. Ali Muhammad etc. respondents/plaintiffs riled a suit before the Civil Judge, Khanewal against the petitioners /defendants for a declaration that out of 9C,'kanals of the disputed land they are in possession of 68 kanals 2 marlas and the land transferred in the name of the defendants through Mutation No.74 dated 11‑2‑1973 is illegal and liable to be cancelled. Prayer for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering with the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs and further alienation of the land in dispute was also made. The learned Civil Judge after framing the contesting issues and recording the evidence thereafter dismissed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs. Appeal of the respondents/plaintiffs before the Additional District Judge was accepted vide judgment dated 18‑12‑1985. The learned District Judge held that the respondents are the owners in possession of 29 kanals 12 marlas relating to Mutation No.162 dated 21 9‑1954 and that Mutation No.74 dated 11‑2‑1973 in favour of the petitioners/defendants is illegal, void and ineffective against the rights of the respondents. The petitioners filed civil revision against the said order in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 12‑1‑1986. The learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue before us that the learned High Court erroneously upheld the Mutation No.162 as valid and Mutation No.74 as illegal as the respondents failed to prove the purchase of the suit property. A perusal of the record will show that the property in dispute was sold to the respondents vide Mutation 162 by one Abdul Qadir and the possession of the land was delivered to respondents since the date of sale. In addition to other oral evidence Patwari Halqa who entered the said mutation also appeared in support of the sale mutation before the trial Court. The possession of respondents over the disputed land is established from the Revenue record since 1955‑56 as co‑sharers/purchasers from Abdul Qadir and the petitioners failed to produce any evidence on the record to show that the respondents ever paid the rent of the suit property to the petitioners/defendants. The two Courts below have held that Mutation No.162 was not proved to be fraudulent and thus it is a question of fact on which both the Courts below including the High Court have rightly come to a correct conclusion to declare Mutation No.162 as genuine. Under the circumstances, we do not think that the petitioners have made out a case for leave to appeal. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M.B.A./N‑208/S Petition dismissed.