2006 PLP 1553 (MLD)

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.

The dispute between the parties, relates to a house with the land underneath measuring 10 Marlas and superstructure existing thereupon, situated in village Kandhawala. The property is in the name of the respondents, but is in possession of the appellant, who is real brother of the respondents. The appellant brought a suit for declaration, claiming that his deceased father was the actual owner of the house and due to family settlement, during his lifetime, had given the house to him; in the alternative, he pleaded the acquisition of title on the basis of his adverse possession. It may be pertinent to state here that, the appellant also claimed that the construction over the plot has been raised by him with his own funds. Anyhow, the respondents also brought a suit for possession of the house on the basis of their ownership and claimed to have purchased the land underneath and the raising of the superstructure. Both the suits were consolidated. Issues were framed and the parties were put to trial. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the land and the house belong to the respondents and they are entitled to possession, therefore, by allowing the suit of the respondents for the possession, dismissed that of the appellant. Both these judgment and decrees were challenged by the appellant in appeal, but without any success.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, according to the contents of the plaint in the suit of possession, filed by the respondents, it is stated that the land underneath was purchased by them in the year, 1965; but according to the dates of birth of the respondents, they were hardly about 13 years of age at that time; resultantly, the land was purchased by the father of the parties, who was owner and the super-structure has been raised upon the said land by the appellant; however, during his lifetime, due to some family settlement, the father had given this property to the appellant. It is further stated that the case of the respondents that it is they, who had purchased the land, has been controverted in their evidence, particularly the statement of the mother of the parties, who stated that the same was purchased by the father of the parties and gifted to the respondents.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that according to the concurrent finding of facts, recorded by the learned Courts below on the basis of the evidence, particularly the statement of real mother of the parties, the property in question was purchased by the father of the parties, but in the name of the minors, which means that the property was gifted to them. In any case, the respondents are the recorded owners of the property. There is also the evidence that the superstructure was raised by the funds provided by the respondents. The appellant's case that, the property was subsequently partitioned, has not been accepted by the Courts below for cogent reasons. His plea of adverse possession has also not been believed, which otherwise is destructive of his first plea, claiming the exclusive ownership on account of the family settlement. Resultantly, I do not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent finding of facts, recorded by the two Courts below. This appeal thus, has no merits and is hereby dismissed. M.I./A-43/L Appeal dismissed.