1998 PLP 634 (SCMR)

2. The brief facts are that the present petitioner and Mir Samad, both sons of Wazir Khan, filed a suit against Abdul Ghani and Jehangir claiming that the disputed property comprising Kashra Nos.23 and 24 situated in Mauza Pakhbaig Allan, Tehsil Batgram, was owned by them and that the same was mortgaged to the defendants for a sum of Rs.400. It was further averred that in the Misli Haqiat for the year 1976‑77, the same had been wrongly shown as in the ownership of the defendants. They, therefore, claimed possession of the disputed property through redemption. The aforesaid suit was resisted by the respondents. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following seven issues:‑‑ "(1) Whether the plaintiffs have cause of action? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit? (3) Whether the suit is within time? (4) Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? (5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for declaration as prayed for? (6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for possession as prayed for? (7) Relief." On Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 6, the following finding was recorded by the learned trial Court:‑‑ "The record produced by the Patwari Halqa shows that the suit land belonged to Jehangir. The plaintiff has totally relied on his oral evidence. P:W.4 in his cross‑examination has stated that he had no written proof regarding his ownership or mortgage in favour of the defendant's father. He has further stated that at the time of mortgage he was not born. He has further stated that he cannot produce any deed in respect of mortgage. The plaintiffs has not produced any independent witness who could prove this version. So, keeping in view the statement of the P. Ws. and record produced by the Patwari Halqa I hold that the plaintiffs have got no cause of action and they are not entitled to the decree for declaration and possession as prayed for. All these issues are decided in the negative." The aforesaid finding has been concurred with by the appellate Court as well as by the learned Judge in Chambers. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.

3. In support of the above petitions Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the Courts below should have decided the point on what basis an ownership over the land can be proved. According to him, the oral evidence produced by the petitioner was sufficient to prove his title.

4. In our view, the question, as to whether a particular witness is to be believed or not to be believed, is a matter of appraisal of evidence. The three Courts after having appraised the oral evidence produced by the petitioner found that the petitioner failed to prove his ownership and, therefore, he was non-suited. For recording the above finding, cogent reasons have been given by the Courts below. Besides contrary oral evidence, there was documentary evidence inter alia, in the form of Misli Haqiat for the year 1976‑

77. The above petitions have no merits. Leave is refused. A.A./B‑8/S Leave refused.