1991 PLP 829 (SCMR)

Younas Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Hameed Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants. Respondents: Ex parte. Date of hearing: 9th February, 1991. NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.‑‑‑ Leave was granted to the appellants against the judgment dated 11‑2‑1984 of the Peshawar High Court allowing the Revision Application filed by respondent Malook and three others hereinafter referred as the respondents and setting aside the judgments of the two Courts below against them and decreeing their suit. The respondents had filed a suit against the appellants and defendants Nos.10 to 16, claiming a declaration that the respondents and defendants Nos.10 to 16 were owners in possession of the suit land and entitled to compensation assessed by the Government for part of the said land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and that the appellants had no right or interest in the suit land and the said compensation. In the alternative, the respondents claimed ownership through adverse possession. The suit was contested by the appellants. Evidence adduced by the parties was recorded by the trial Court. The suit was however, dismissed by judgment dated 5‑4‑1978. Respondents' appeal was also dismissed by judgment dated 8‑3‑1979 of the Additional District Judge, Nowshera. Respondents came to the Peshawar High Court in Revision which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 11‑2‑1984. We have heard Mr. Younas Shah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Respondents have remained ex parte.

3. The case of the respondents was based entirely on oral statement on their behalf that they alongwith defendants Nos.10 to 16 were owners of the land and on the entries in the Revenue Record of "Bila Lagan ba Tasawar Malkiet" in their favour although in the column of cultivation the entry regarding their occupation was Ghair Dakhilkaran". According to the High Court, entries relating to the respondents established their adverse possession. In our view no case of adverse possession was made out by the respondents and the High Court erred in allowing the Revision Application. In Shamshad v. Mukkammil Shah 1984 SC M R 912 it was held as follows:‑ "Learned counsel before us has urged that the entries in the Jamabandis showing the petitioners holding the land supported their claim. But there is no force in the contention because the said entries are not amenable to ail interpretation that the petitioners themselves were the owners, particularly when in the same Jamabandis the name of Abdur Rahman and thereafter of Mst. Pari Jan is duly entered in the column of owner, whereas the names of the petitioners or of their predecessors‑in‑interest are shown in the column of tenant." Only on the basis of aforesaid entries in the Revenue Record in their favour, a case of adverse possession was not made out in law by the respondents.

4. The pleas of valid title in the suit land and of adverse possession taken on behalf of the respondents were also irreconcilable in the circumstances of the case. Miran Khan v. Ghulam Rasool 1988 S C M R 1765 and Ghulam Qadir v. Ahmad Yar P L D 19% SC 1049 go against the respondents on this point. Recently this Court in its decision dated 7‑10‑1990 in Civil Appeal No. 395 of 1975 titled: Mirza Ghulam Hussain v. Ch. Iqbal Ahmad, has in great detail examined the law relating to adverse possession confirming that sources of lawful title and adverse possession are contradictory pleas and cannot stand together. It has been laid down that nothing but a clear, unequivocal and notorious disavowal of the title of the owner will render the possession adverse a long continued possession hostile to him. In this case, apart from the aforesaid entries in the Revenue Records, nothing else supported the case of the respondents and it is now well established that on these entries alone no claim of adverse possession could be based. Additionally the pleas of the respondents of ownership and adverse possession, in the circumstances of this case, were irreconcilable.

5. The appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 11-2-1984 of the High Court is set aside, with no order as to costs. M.BA./A‑830/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.