1986 PLP 293 (MLD)

‑‑‑S.115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Concurrent findings of facts of two Courts below for entitlement to property on basis of physical possession, held, would not be disturbed by High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. A.T. Mahmood for Applicants. Date of hearing: 17th December, 1985. The applicant was occupying some area measuring about 600 square yards in Liaquatabad area. According to his version, he gave over possession of a portion of this land to his sister where the sister and her husband started living. His further version that he has also raised some construction, is disputed because the defendants/ respondents claim that they themselves have raised the construction. Under some policy framed by the K . M . C . who is respondent No.2 in this revision, the K.M.C. started regularising these possessions by allotting lands to the persons, who were found in physical possession of the land. Perhaps survey was conducted and public notices were published showing the possession of each occupant. As the respondent No.1 was found in possession the K . M. C . in pursuance of the policy to regularise the Kutcha Abadi have executed a lease‑deed in favour of respondent No.1 which created a bitterness and acrimony between respondent No.1 and applicant resulting in a suit which was filed by the applicant for declaration and injunction and a prayer for cancellation of the lease‑deed which the respondent K.M.C. had executed in favour of respondent No.1. Unfortunately the applicant could not prove the physical possession to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court and the suit was dismissed. He filed an appeal before the District Judge and the learned IVth Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal upholding the findings of the learned IIIrd Civil Judge, Karachi. Against these two concurrent findings the applicant now files this revision. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has a grievance that his side of the story which was the true version in the circumstances of the case, has not been properly appreciated and the two lower Courts have erred in not placing reliance on the evidence produced by him. The learned counsel further contends that Issue No.9 which, according to the learned counsel, was an important issue in the case, has not been given proper treatment in the two judgments. I am afraid, in the circumstances of the case issue No.9 was not very material because on his own showing the applicant himself claims entitlement on the basis of his alleged possession. So is the basis of the claim of the respondent. In the circumstances there seems to be no reason to disagree with the findings of facts in the two judgments. This revision is, therefore, dismissed. H . B . T . Revision dismissed.