1986 PLP 16 (MLD)

The applicant filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession on the allegation that being a displaced person, his father was allotted agricultural land in Deh Hingorja, Taluka Gambat and he alongwith his family members permanently resided there. According to him a Katcha building belonging to Reloo Mal was occupied by the applicant and on 8‑1‑1952 it was allotted to Hakim Syed Muhammad Shafi, the father of the applicant, who was the head of the family. Later his father occupied a separate house, and the applicant continued to be in possession of the disputed house with his children. Thereafter, the applicant's father on persuasion of one Qadir Bakhsh, who was the Headmaster of the Government High School. Hingorjs delivered the possession of the house temporarily to the school boarding house. Later the applicant came to know that the said house has been transferred to the school, illegally and without jurisdiction. The respondent No. 3 refused to deliver possession to the applicant, therefore he filed suit on 12‑12‑1969. The respondents filed written statement, denying the allegations, and averred that the house was never allotted to the applicant's father nor it had ever remained in his possession. The respondents claimed that the house has been allotted to the school and has remained in possession of the school from the year 1951. It was maintained that the house was properly transferred to the school under Scheme No. VII. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:‑‑ (1) Is the plaintiff owner of the house in suit by force of law as alleged? (2) Is the transfer made by Deputy Commissioner Khairpur in favour of Government High School, Hingorja is null and void and without jurisdiction? (3) Is the defendant No. 3 a licensee and the licence has lapsed, if so its effect? (4) What should the decree be? The finding of the learned trial Court on issue No. l was in the negative. Issue No.2 is stated to have been dropped. Perhaps in view of the finding on issue No.1 it has become redundant and finding on issue No.3 was in the negative. Suit was accordingly dismissed with cost. The applicant filed appeal, which also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khairpur. On issue No.2 also he gave his finding that the house was legally and properly transferred to the school. Mr. Shafaat Hussain the learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has proved his possession through P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, and the Courts below have misread the evidence of these witnesses. There is concurrent finding of fact that the applicant was never in possession of the property in dispute. From the evidence, documentary, as well as oral, it is clear that, to begin with, the possession was with the father of the applicant and not the applicant himself. Although it has been pleaded that after the father was allotted another house, the applicant continued to live in the same house with his children, there seems to be no cogent and 'convincing evidence to substantiate it. The most amazing part of the case is that the applicant himself avoided to come in the witness‑box and to depose to the fact that he was in possession of the house. Even his own witness Qadir Bux has stated that the possession was delivered to the school by the father of the applicant. The document alleged to be a letter of allotment is also in the name of his father. In these circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. In any event such concurrent finding of fact, which has been given after due consideration and discussion of the evidence by both the Courts below cannot be disturbed, merely because, according to a party there is a misreading of evidence without clearly specifying it or there is possibility of arriving at a different conclusion. I have gone through the judgments passed by both the Courts Below and find that the trial Court had adverted to the evidence, documentary as well as oral. The learned Additional District Judge has written an exhaustive judgment in which he has dealt with each and every witness and the documents produced by the parties in a logical and analytical manner, and in my view he has arrived at a correct conclusion. The fact that the applicant has not been able to establish his possession on the property in dispute completely debars him from seeking any entitlement to the property under the provisions of the Settlement Laws. In these circumstances, I do not find it proper to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. The Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed. H . B . T . Revision application dismissed.