1987 PLP 1295 (SCMR)

GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J‑‑ On 23‑7‑1963, Khushi Muhammad son of Muhammad Din, Jat by caste, resident of Theroon, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura, filed a suit for possession of land, measuring 12 Kanals 13 Marlas, bearing Khasra Nos.503/2, 520 and 529, situated in the aforesaid village, against Shahana son of Jewana; Ghulam Rasul son of Dad, Said son of Sohna, Barkat son of Imam Din, and Ditta son of Hayat, all Jats, residents of the said place, in the Court of Civil Judge, Sheikhupura. The plaintiff alleged that he was owner of the suit land. It came to him in Consolidation operations. Defendants Nos.l to 3 claimed to be owners of the land by adverse possession while defendants Nos.4 and 5 tenants under defendants Nos.l to

3. The defendants were in illegal possession of the suit land. They had refused to deliver its possession to the plaintiff. The defendants joined issue. The trial Court framed the following issues:‑

(1) Is the plaintiff owner of the suit land? (2) Have the defendants become owner of the suit land by remaining in adverse possession of the suit land for a period of 12 years or more prior to the institution of the suit? (3) Is the valuation of the suit land, for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction correct, if not, what is the correct valuation?. The deficiency in the court fee was made, up. Therefore, only issues 1 and 2 were contested. The plaintiff produced Muhammad Salim Akhtar, Office Qanungo Zahur Ahmad and Akbar Ali, both Patwaris. They supported the claim of the plaintiff that he was owner of the land. He got the same under Consolidation operation. The plaintiff also appeared as his own witness. He produced documentary evidence in the form of Parch: Zamindaran (Ex.Pl), copy of Khasra Girdawari (Ex.P2) and copies of Jamabandis (Exhs. P3 to P5). In rebuttal, only one of the defendants namely Said gave evidence. The rest of the evidence consisted of copies of Jamabandif (Exhs. Dl to D4). After the appraisal of the evidence, the trial Judge found in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, by judgment and decree, dated 30‑11‑1965, he decreed the suit. Except Barkat, the rest of the defendants went in appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was decided by the Addl. District Judge, Lahore at Sheikhupura. The first appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court by judgment and decree, dated 24‑3‑1967. The reason which prevailed with the Addl. District Judge was that defendants Shahana, Ghulam Rasul and Said had not been paying Batai to the land owner and that they had beer in adverse possession of the land for more than 12 years. Barkat Ali filed a second appeal in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore. The appeal was accepted by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court by judgment, dated 6‑1‑1987. The Judgment and decree of the first appellate Court was set aside, while that of the Civil Judge, dated 30‑11‑1965, was restored. The learned Judge relied upon two decisions of this Court in Lala and another v. Mst. Jante (1968 S C M R 131) and Khair Muhammad v. Khuda Bakhsh and two others (1976 S C M R 69) and held that the mere entries in the revenue record were not sufficient to prove adverse possession of the defendants. Legal heirs of Shahana, defendant (since dead) Ghulam Rasul and Said, defendants, have filed petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the judgment of the trial Court was very sketchy. The view taken by the first appellate Court was in accordance with law whereas the conclusion arrived at by the High Court was contrary to the evidence on record. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel. The evidence produced by the petitioners‑defendants was not sufficient in law to establish their claim of adverse possession. The High Court, rightly applied the dictum in the two cases, referred to above. The judgment of the High Court, as such, is subject to no exception. We, therefore, decline to grant leave to appeal. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M. B. A./S‑36/S Petition dismissed.