1983 PLP 141 (CLC)

This appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below dated 30-6-1977 and 30-3-1981 by which the suit for possession of the suit land of the plaintiffs-appellants in their case against respondents. Nos. 2 to 3 was dismissed. The suit of Mst. Kamo plaintiff-respondent was decreed in her favour. The written arguments were placed on record by the counsel of the parties. The land in suit originally belonged to Imam Bakhsh father of Mst. Kanio respondent who (father) died without a male issue during the Dogra Regime, the mutation of which was attested in favour of his daughters against which the collaterals of the deceased i. e. Ghulam Muhammad father of Ilam Din and Noor Muhammad respondents and Alif Din father of the appellants brought a suit in the Court of Dogras' on basis of custom where they succeed ed and names of the daughters of Imam bakhsh were struck down. Ghulam Muhammad and AV Din had a decree in their favour of the land left by Imam Bakhsh. The perusal of the record shows that Mst. Kamo was in possession of the land left by her father through her husbands. She had to marry more than one. Her husband Farmana used to live with her over the land in suit. After the death of Farmana it appears. she was married to (lain Din who in order to grab her property did so. Rut the decree obtained by Alif Din and Ghulam Muhammad was not executed. The circumstances show that Mst. Kamo never patted with the possession. Imam Din in order to grab the entire property left by Imam Bakhsh lodged a suit on the basis of adverse possession but he failed. After his failure Mst. Kamo herself lodged a suit for adverse possession of the land in suit against the defendants-appellants which was decreed in her favour. The plea of the defendants that Mst. Kamo sued them in collusion with her husband Ilam Din who himself failed in obtaining a decree, could not be established by the defendants-appellants . This is a concurrent finding of fact. And again her continuous possession over the land in suit by way of prescription was also established. It was, after due appreciation and appraisal of the evidence of the parties that it was so held. Even some of the witnesses of the appellants were also of the say that possession of the plaintiff-respondent bad been over the land in suit since about 28 years. The circumstances of tire case transpire that Mst. Kamo as wife of Ilam Din never left the land of her father to whom (wife) though as husband, be had access. The decree which was obtained by the father of the appellants was never executed and it could not be established by them that Ilam Din was cultivating the land en their behalf. II is in evidence on both sides that the land in suit is in possession of Mst. Kamo which she gets cultur ed through her sons since long. In these circumstances the Courts below were right in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants against the respondents. Nos. 2 and 3 because they (latter) were not in possession of the land in suit. The possession is of Mst. Kamo respondent. No possession against Mst. Kamo was claimed by the appellants. And so the findings of facts arrived at by the lower Courts, cannot be; disturbed in second appeal, Whatever, evidence was led by Mst. Kamo respondent and appellants in the case decreed that was properly appreciated by both the Courts below and authorities which were cited by the counsel on both the sides were also properly looked into by that Court, There was nothing illegal or improper in their judgments so as to attract the interference of this Court in the impugned judgments. That being so, there is no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs throughout. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.