1989 PLP 2277 (CLC)

(8) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit Mosque and Chowk since 1901‑1902 if so, its effect ? OPP. (9) Whether the repair and construction of the suit Mosque and Chowk has been performed by the plaintiffs since long, if so, its effect ? OPP. (10) Whether the wrong entries regarding the ownership have been given in Khana Shumari during the settlement? OPP.

4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bannu, found issues Nos.l and 2, 8, 9 and 10 against the petitioners and dismissed the suit on 19‑10‑1984. The learned Additional District Judge, upheld these findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition.

5. Sayed Bashir Hussain Shah Zaidi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that entries of Khana Shumari, having not been provided for either in the Land Revenue Act, 1967 or the Land Revenue Rules, 1968, have got no legal sanctity and, therefore, any such entries qua a property would not confer any title to the property .recorded therein on those whose names find mentioned therein. In support of this contention Mr. Zaidi made reference to sections 39 and 41 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 and rule 30 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 to show that concept of Khana Shumari was alien to the Land Revenue Scheme. The learned counsel then invited my attention to an extract Ex.PW.2/2 from the Settlement Record of 1901. The position as appears from this document is as under:‑‑ Khatoni Owners Cultivators No. of Field and details of area

120 Ghulam and Maqbooza 913 Mosque Ghulam Akbar Musalmanan 9 marlas ‑Ditto‑and 914 " Shamilat Deh: 1 marla 121 ‑do‑ ‑do‑ 898Banjar Qadeem 2-5

6. The learned counsel submits that on the strength of judgment and decree photo copy Ex.PW.3/1 Ghulam and Ghulam Jan aforementioned lost their claim for possession of Khasra No.898 in favour of Sherzad, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners and since then the petitioners were continuing in possession thereof. In short, the claim of the petitioners to the property in dispute is based on the entries in the extract Ex.PW.2/2 and photo copy of the judgment Ex.PW.3/1.

7. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that title of the petitioner to the disputed property on the strength of these two documents is not sustainable. He also urged that, in any case, the entries of Khana Shumari for the year 1905‑06 having been assailed in the year 1983 were hopelessly barred by tune under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, particularly when the petitioners have miserably failed to prove their possession during the last 12 years. 7‑A. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are not tenable. The mosque bearing Khasra Nos.913 and 914 in the extract Ex.PW.2/2 from the Settlement Record of 1901 was recorded in the names of Ghulam and Ghulam Akbar but the petitioners' predecessors and after their death the petitioners are not shown to have got any thing to do therewith in that the subject‑matter of decree in Suit No.244 of 1887 photo copy Ex.PW.3/1 related to Khasra No.898 which was Shamilat Deh and was of `Banlar Qadeen'i classification. Secondly, even if it is conceded for a while that the mosque recorded in the extract Ex.PW.2/2 was also decreed in favour of the petitioners' ancestors, still the petitioners have no locus standi to lay claim to the property in dispute because the petitioners have miserably failed to) establish by any evidence both oral or documentary that property bearing Khana ‑Shumari No.49 and 50 corresponds to Khasra Nos.913 and

914. Confronted with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioners tried to wriggle out by saying that even the respondents have not been able to show as to how their ancestors came to be recorded in the record of Khana Shumari. Again this contention, I am afraid is devoid of any substance. Even if it is conceded that the respondents could not substantiate the origin of their ancestors title to the property in dispute prior to 1905‑06, still the petitioners could only succeed on the strength of their own evidence both oral and documentary and could not avail of the weakness of the opponents. This being so, the findings of the two Courts below on issues Nos.2, 8, 9 and 10 which have been recorded on the correct appreciation of ocular and documentary evidence are unexceptional. Likewise petitioners claim to impugn the entries of the Khana Shumari for the year 1905‑06 in the year 1983 was rightly held as hopelessly barred by time under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has thus failed to show that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below, in any manner suffered from illegality or material irregularity. No misreading or non‑reading of any evidence has been pointed out either. As such this petition being without merit is dismissed with costs. AA./863/P Revision dismissed,