1998 PLP 1423 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S.42‑‑‑Suit for declaration and injunction relating to land in question, was dismissed by Courts below‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Entries in Revenue Record clearly indicated that plaintiffs were tenants of land in question‑‑‑Evidence on record did not show that plaintiffs, as per their claim, were owners in possession of such land‑‑‑Plaintiffs could not make any reference to any document showing that they were holding land in question, in their own right‑‑‑Oral evidence brought on record did not support contention of plaintiffs that they were actually holding such land as owners thereof‑‑‑Plaintiffs' contention that they had purchased land in question from defendants was not borne out from any evidence‑‑‑Mutation entered in respect of alleged transaction was later on cancelled when objected to from opposite side‑‑‑Plaintiffs, thus, could not point out that there was bona fide transaction of sale and purchase between parties as alleged in plaint‑‑‑No interference was, therefore, warranted in judgments and decrees of Courts below whereby plaintiffs' suit had been dismissed for lack of evidence. Hafiz S. A. Rehman for Petitioners. This revision is directed against the judgment and decree of the Lower Court and the Appellate Court, dated 26‑4‑1995 and 20‑6‑1997 respectively.

2. The facts leading to this revision petition are that a suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs regarding the land measuring 10 Marlas, detailed in the head note of the plaint. It was claimed that the property in question was purchased by the petitioners/plaintiffs from the respondents/defendants vide Mutation No. 1790, dated 29‑4‑1965. The sale money was paid and possession was obtained from the vendors by the petitioners/plaintiffs. However, the predecessor‑in‑interest of some of the respondents/defendants appeared before the Revenue Officer on 29‑4‑1965 and allegedly admitted the possession and payment of consideration but the mutation was ultimately cancelled on 23‑1‑1968. Thereafter, some of the respondents/defendants alienated their shares in the land vide Mutation Nos.226 and 227, dated 26‑5‑1981 which was challenged in the Courts below. It, thus, following that the petitioners/plaintiffs claim partnership with possession over the suit land or which Issue No.l was framed by the learned trial Judge. After discussing the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion on the aforesaid issue that the petitioners/plaintiffs were not owners of land in dispute, but were in possession as tenants. The aforesaid finding on fact was confirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment referred to above.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs was confronted with the evidence brought on record which clearly proved that the petitioners/plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed land as tenants at will. In this regard, beside referring the oral evidence, a reference was also made to the relevant Revenue Record particularly to the 'Jamabandi' for the year 1985/1986 (Exh.P.5) where the petitioners/plaintiffs were recorded as tenants at will in the column of tenants as against column No.3 whereas Mst. Chanani Jan, etc., respondents/defendants have been recorded as owners. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not make any reference to any document showing that the petitioners/plaintiffs hold the land as owners in their own right. Likewise, the oral evidence brought on record did not support the contention of the petitioners/plaintiffs that they were actually holding the land in question as its owners. The contention that they had purchased the property in question from owner Afzal Khan for a consideration of Rs.600 in the year 1965 is not borne out from any evidence. On the contrary, the mutation entered in respect of the alleged transaction was later on cancelled when objected to from the other side. In such a situation, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out that there was a bona fide transaction of sale and purchase between the Articles as alleged in the plaint.

4. The revision petition being meritless is dismissed in limine A.A./M‑636/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Revision dismissed