1998 PLP 509 (SCMR)

IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.

The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench Abbottabad dated 14-2-1994 whereby the civil revision filed by them was dismissed in limine.

2. The relevant facts are that the petitioners instituted a suit for declaration claiming ownership of the suit property to the extent of their share on the basis of adverse possession for more than 12 years and in the alternative possession of the suit land was prayed on the basis of inheritance. Entries in the Revenue Record describing them as mortgagees and tenants-at-will since the settlement of 1966-67 in the Mist Haqqiyyat were also challenged being mala fide and collusive. The learned trial Court, in view of the pleadings of the parties and the issues struck thereon and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29-11-1990. Petitioners' appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Mansehra by judgment and decree dated 10-2-1993. Likewise, the civil revision filed by them was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court vide order dated 14-2-1994.

3. A concurrent finding of fact has been given by the Courts below that claim of the plaintiffs/petitioners of adverse possession for over 12 years has not been established on record. The learned District Judge concurred with the trial Court that the witnesses of the petitioners have contradicted themselves on material points and that there was no evidence to support the claim of the petitioners or to rebut the entries in the Revenue Record adverse to their interests. The learned, Judge in Chamber, after thorough scrutiny of the record, dismissed the revision petition with the following observation:-- "Learned counsel submitted that evidence has been misread in the case. The record of the case was summoned and it is found that the plaintiffs petitioners are not sure about their title to the suit land and, therefore, the title suit was rightly dismissed by the lower Courts. The plea of adverse possession for more than 12 years was repelled by tracing the interest of the plaintiffs-petitioners in the suit land to some extent as mortgagees and thereafter, as tenants of the proprietary class of the area where the settlement of 1966-67 took place. "

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Judge of the High Court has given contradictory judgment inasmuch as Civil Revision No.77 of 1993 relating to a part of the suit property was admitted to regular hearing while Civil Revision No.78 of 1993 was dismissed in limine through the impugned order. The contention is devoid of any force. Both the revision petitions relate to distinct and separate subject-matters and were, therefore, rightly disposed of as such.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Exh.P.W.l/2, copy of fard jamabandi for the year 1983-84, to contend that the petitioners alongwith others have been shown therein as owners in cultivating possession in respect of part of the suit property. Be that as it may, the respondents have also been recorded therein as owners of the suit land and the petitioners as mortgagees and tenants. Additionally, the pleas of adverse possession and title by way of inheritance being contradictory, are irreconcilable. The petitioners' suit was, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. The controversy raised herein is concluded by concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below and no case is made out for interference.

6. In view of the above, we find no force in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. Leave is refused. A.A./A-1313/S Leave refused.