1999 PLP 846 (CLC)

(3) Whether the suit is barred by time? (4) Whether the suit is vexatious and the defendant is entitled to special costs? (5) Whether the suit is Benami and collusive? (6) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit? (7) Whether the defendants obtained the possession of the suit land under the sale before the attestation of mutation? (8) Whether a sum of Rs.4,500 was fixed in good faith or actually paid at the time of sale? (9) If Issue No.8 is not proved, what was the market value of the suit land? (10) Relief. .3. The parties produced their evidence, oral as well as documentary. Exh.D.1 is the receipt said to have been executed by Ghaus Muhammad vendor in favour of the vendees/petitioners on 14‑5‑1978 on the basis of which the possession is said to have been delivered. Placing reliance on the aforesaid document and the connected/relevant evidence in the matter, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that same was barred by, time as the possession of the suit land was acquired by them on 14‑5‑1978. It was held that an amount of Rs.4,500 was paid as the sale price. The remaining issues were disposed of in favour of the pre‑emptors.

4. Feeling aggrieved an appeal was preferred wherein Issues Nos.3 and 7 with respect to the delivery of possession on 14‑5‑1978 were argued which were decided against the petitioners/vendees/defendants. Consequently, the suit was decreed by the learned Appellate Court in consideration for an amount of Rs.4,500.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners/vendees have preferred this revision petition which has been resisted by the respondent/pre‑emptor. 6. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record before me. Only Issues Nos.3 and 7 have been argued. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the possession of the disputed property was delivered to the petitioners on 14‑5‑1978 when the land was sold to them by the vendor and the suit instituted on 21‑3‑1982 is barred by time. I do not agree with him. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/pre‑emptor the mere execution of receipt Exh.D.l is nothing enough to make out the delivery of possession to the vendees by the vendor on 14‑5‑1978 under the sale. In this respect suffice it to refer to section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 according to which the factum of acquisition of property through purchase has to be reported by the vendees to the Patwari of the estate who had to record such report in the daily diary to be maintained by him in the prescribed manner. It is on the basis of the said information that the entry is made in the daily diary and Register of Mutations maintained by the Patwari to get the same attested from the Revenue Officer. The wisdom behind the incorporation of section 42 in the Land Revenue Act, 1967 is that the factum of sale of land and delivery of possession of the same thereunder is not kept secret and matter does not remain out of sight/information of those whose rights A are adversely affected and those who acquire statutory rights after the sale as in the instant case. A registered sale‑deed is a notice to all and the said section 42 also protects the rights of affectees or interested persons. It is the admitted position that the fact of the sale of the property and delivery of the possession on 14‑5‑1978 was not reported to the Patwari and obviously not recorded in the daily diary. This being the position, the receipt Exh.D.l has no legal force as rightly held by the learned Appellate Court. The copy of Khasra Girdawari Exh.P.l does not show any change of possession regarding the suit land in favour of the vendees in Rabi 1978 to bolster up the defence of the vendees and rather no entry could be made in favour of the petitioners‑vendees in this respect for the simple reason that, as expressed above, the factum of sale and delivery of possession was not reported to the Patwari of the estate by the veridees. No cogent evidence has been produced as to why there was delay in getting registered mutation on 21‑3‑1982. Hence, receipt EXh.D.I is held to be a self‑created and after thought evidence to avoid the sword of right of pre emption and rather its execution was not permissible in the light of the aforesaid reasoning based on statutory provision. An important aspect of the matter is that disputed property is a party of joint Khata which could not be subject to the physical possession of the petitioners‑vendees only. The plea taken by the vendees that there was a family settlement has also no force in view of the aforesaid provisions of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 as the joint owners in the Khata admittedly did not report the matter to the Patwari of the estate in this regard for entry in the daily diary and also in the Register of Mutations. This defence in the matter raised by the petitioners‑defendants has simply fallen on the ground like a house of cards. Consequently, I hold that the learned lower appellate Court has rightly held that the period of limitation shall 8 be computed with effect from the date of the attestation of Mutation No.22 on 20‑4‑1981. The exception pleaded by the petitioners/defendants regarding the inception of sale and thereunder the delivery of possession on 14‑5‑1978 has not been established and proved. The suit was instituted on 21‑3‑1982 i.e. within the prescribed period of limitation of one year from 20‑4‑1981, 1, therefore, affirm the findings of the learned lower appellate Court on Issues Nos.3 and 7 as there is no legal infirmity in the same. No other point/issue was argued before me. 1 For what has been stated above, I see no merit in this revision petition sand dismiss the same. In view of the long pendency of this matter, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S‑297/L Revision dismissed.