2011 PLP 2020 (YLR)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

This civil revision has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 15-6-2010 passed by Mian Muhammad Anwar, learned Additional District Judge Sialkot who dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment and decree dated 15-4-1996 passed by the learned trial Court.

2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the civil revision are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration along with permanent injunction contending therein that the suit land/plot measuring 15 marla fully described in the plaint was possessed by their grandfathers and the petitioners- plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property since their three generations. The version of the respondents-defendants Nos.13, 7 to 15, that they have constructed their houses in the said khasra numbers after getting the land partitioned privately is incorrect as the respondents have no right, title or concern, whatsoever, with the suit property. It was also argued that the petitioners-plaintiffs are exclusive owners of the suit land including community center and six shops which they have rented out to the tenants.

3. The suit was contested by the respondents-defendants. The respondents-defendants Nos.9, 2 to 8, 10 and 11 while submitting their written statements also raised legal objections including that the suit property belongs to the Christian community but the petitioners-plaintiffs want to usurp the property under the garb of present suit. They also averred that the petitioners-plaintiffs are neither owners nor in possession of the suit property, therefore, the suit be dismissed. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues: "ISSUES: (1) Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi and cause of action to bring this suit? OPD. (2) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD. (3) Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands? OPD. (4) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their words and conduct to bring this suit? OPD. (5) Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs under section 35-A of C.P.C.? OPD. (6) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. (7) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of suit property, if so, whether they are entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP. (8) Relief."

4. After recording of oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15-4-1996 dismissed the suit of the petitioners-plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed appeal which was also dismissed on 15-6-2010 by Mian Muhammad Anwar, learned Additional District Judge Sialkot. Hence this civil revision.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends the petitioners are absolute owners of the suit land measuring 8 kanal since their forefathers whereupon the petitioners have also constructed their houses and have been putting up with their families. Learned counsel further contends that out of total suit land, land measuring 15 marla is being used by the petitioners as courtyard. Further contends that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned lower courts are result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence, the learned courts below have not-applied their judicial mind and have wrongly non-suited the petitioners merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures, therefore, the civil revision be allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below be set aside and the suit of the petitioners-plaintiffs be decreed with cost throughout.

6. Arguments heard. Record perused.

7. The perusal of the record shows that the petitioners-plaintiffs have failed to annex any document in support of their claim of title. The version of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit land is situated in Abadi Deh and no record is maintained in respect of Abadi Deli is misconceived because the relevant record viz, Aks Abadi and Shajra Abadi remains available with the Circle Patwari as well as in the office of Sadar Qanungo. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners-plaintiffs be declared as owners in possession of the suit property under the provisions of section 3 of Conferment of Proprietary Rights to the Non-Proprietors in Abadi Deh Act, 1995 is also not applicable to the case in hand because such plea was not raised in their plaint. Moreover, there is no evidence available on record that the petitioners are landless tenants who have been occupying the suit land before 1995. On the other hand, both the learned courts below have confirmed that the petitioners-plaintiffs are out of possession and the suit land belongs to the Christian community. The perusal of the record shows that both the learned lower courts have examined the grievance of the petitioners in the light of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties and both the learned lower courts have decided against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgments and decrees. In the circumstances, no interference is called for.

8. The result of the above discussion is that the civil revision has no force which is dismissed in limine. M.U.Y./R-55/L Petition dismissed.