1995 PLP 506 (MLD)

Mirza Shaukat Ali Beg for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th March, 1994. In this revision petition a concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below in the suit filed by the petitioner that they failed to establish that the land‑in‑dispute had been redeemed and that they were no longer the mortgagors have been assailed.

2. The land in dispute was admittedly mortgaged by the predecessor‑in- interest of the petitioners with respondents in the year 1903 for a period of 8 years through Mutation No. 3194 (Exh. P/1). The case of the petitioner was that through Mutation No. 9183 (Exh. P/3) the same stood redeemed on 1‑8‑1968. In the plaint the case was also made out that the land had been redeemed in the year 1960. Mutation No. 9183 (Exh. P/3) sanctioned on 1‑8‑1968 shows that land measuring 14 Kanals was redeemed. The entries in the subsequent record of rights continuously showed that the petitioners were mortgagors and no entry was made that the land had been redeemed. No redemption in fact took place which fact is evident from the established facts i.e. an application for redemption of land made before Assistant Collector Eesa Khail was dismissed on 31‑8‑1981 by the said officer, copy of which order was produced as Exh. P/10. The petitioners filed an appeal against the said order before the higher Revenue Authority i.e., Additional Commissioner, Sargodha, which was rejected on 31‑8‑1982 (Exh. D/3).

3. In view of these established facts it was rightly held concurrently by both the Courts below that redemption of mortgage through Mutation No.9183 allegedly sanctioned on 4‑8‑1968/1‑8‑1968 had not been established. It is established law that mere mutation does neither create any right nor extinguish existing right unless the transactions/facts on the bass of which the same had been sanctioned if denied are independently proved to have existed. The petitioners failed to examine Ahmad Khan or Haq Dad Khan their predecessor‑in‑interest who according to them had redeemed the mortgage to prove these facts, therefore, mere production of a mutation which was never given effect to in the revenue record was not sufficient to establish that the mortgage had been redeemed which fact is belied by the conduct of petitioners themselves who approached the Assistant Commissioner, Eesa Khail for redemption of mortgage and their application was dismissed in 1981. Had the mortgage been redeemed earlier through mutation there was no question of approaching the said officer for the said purpose.

4. The two Courts below have not committed any material illegality and irregularity in passing the impugned judgments and decrees as no case of misreading, misconstruction or non‑reading of a material piece of evidence has been made out. Dismissed with no order as to costs. AA./A‑682/L Revision dismissed.