1996 PLP 1263 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S.28‑‑‑Adverse possession‑‑‑Owners of land in dispute had filed suit for possession against defendant on ground that defendant had fraudulently got entered in his name certain false entries in Revenue Record in respect of land in dispute‑‑‑Defendant solely on basis of such entries, had claimed that he had matured his title to suit land through adverse possession for having remained in occupation thereof without making payment of any rent to any person for a period of more than 12 years‑‑‑Mere fact that defendant was recorded in possession of suit land as "Ghair Haqdar", "Ghair Dakhalkar" and that he did not make payment of rent for a certain period, would not by itself constitute a case of adverse possession in his favour‑‑‑Defendant claiming adverse possession was required to show his continuous, uninterrupted and total hostile occupation of the property for a period of more than 12 years within full knowledge of true owners in order to establish a title through prescription‑‑‑Mere non‑payment of rent of property for any length of time would in no way advance claim of defendant over property in dispute, but he was required to have shown something more than that by bringing evidence in unequivocal terms that he had remained in possession of property in dispute for a period of more than 12 years adversely to the interests of true owners and that was in their full knowledge and notice. Saeed Baig for Petitioner. Muhammad Alain for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th December 1993, Mst. Mumtaz Begum etc. the respondents herein, claimed possession as owners of a certain land measuring 43 Kanals, 11 Marlas and brought a suit against Abdul Ghaffar petitioner in the year, 1984 before the Civil Court. The land situates in the limits of village Shakoor of Charsadda Tehsil. It was averred that the defendant has fraudulently got entered in his name certain false entries like "Bila Legan Bawaja Hissadari Va Khangi Taqseern" in the revenue papers in respect of the case land which wholly belonged to the plaintiffs so much so that a portion of the suit property mortgaged by Sarfaraz Khan, their predecessor‑in interest, with respondent‑defendant No. 11,,namely,.Haji Usman Ali Khan has been recently redeemed by the plaintiffs‑respondents on 13‑11‑1982. This may be mentioned that Haji Usman Ali Khan was although inipleaded as a defendant in the suit but no relief was claimed against him. The petitioner Abdul Ghaffar alone contested the suit. The learned Civil Judge after setting all such issues arising out of the pleadings between the parties recorded evidence on both sides and consequently dismissed the suit on 13‑2‑1984 in view of his findings on the issues of limitation, adverse possession and estoppel. On an appeal filed before the District Judge by the plaintiff, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside on the acceptance of the appeal and the respondents were granted a decree for possession of the land against the defendant‑petitioner with costs. Hence this petition under section 115, C.P.C.

2. I have heard the learned Advocates on both sides. The petitioner defendant solely placed reliance on certain entries made in the revenue papers in his name and stated thereby that he had matured title to the suit property through adverse possession for having remained in occupation thereof without making payment of any rent to any person for a period of more than 12 years. In the statement of the Patwari revenue papers since the settlement of 1927‑28 relating to the suit land have been produced in evidence. These indicate that the name of Abdul Ghaffar petitioner appears in the revenue record for the first time in the Jamabandi of 1949‑50 in the column of cultivation as "Ghair Haqdar", "Ghair Dakhalkar" and "Bila Legan Bawaja Taqseem Khangi". The revenue entries further show that Haji Usman Ali Khan defendant‑respondent No. 11 took the suit land under mortgage in. the year 1961‑62 and the mortgage from his name was afterwards redeemed by the plaintiffs respondents in the year 1982 vide Mutation No.612 dated 13‑11‑1982, copy Exh.PW3/1. This fact has been further elaborated by the respondent‑plaintiff Attaullah in his Court statement dated 29‑10‑1982.

3. The mere fact that the petitioner is recorded in possession of the suit land as "Ghair Haqdar", "Ghair Dakhlakar" and he did not make payment of p rent for a certain period this would not by itself constitute a case of adverse possession in his favour. He is required to show his continuous, uninterrupted and total hostile occupation of the property for a period of more than 12 years with full knowledge of the true owners in order to establish a title through prescription. Mere non‑payment of rent of the property for any length of time would in no way advance his like claim over the land. He was required to have shown something more than that by bringing evidence in unequivocal terms that he had remained in possession of the property for a period of more than 12 years adversely to the interest of the true owners and this was in their full knowledge and notice. In this view of the matter I see that the learned lower Appellate Court has appreciated the case in its true perspective and by reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Judge rightly passed a decree as prayed by the plaintiff‑respondents which I further affirm and dismiss this revision petition with costs throughout. H.B.T /1764/P Revision dismissed