2001 PLP 1877 (MLD)

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land on account of Tamleek and the defendants have no concern with it ? OPP. (2) Whether plaintiffs have got no cause of action to bring this suit? OPD. (3) Whether the defendants are entitled to get special costs, if so to what extent? OPD (4) Whether suit of the plaintiffs is based on mala fide and has been instituted just to harass the defendants? OPD (5) Relief.

4. In support of their respective stand both the parties adduced evidence. Vide judgment and decree, dated 22‑5‑1993 the learned Civil Judge, Liaqatpur dismisses the suit of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved of the said judgment and decree the plaintiffs/petitioners filed an appeal which also met the same fate at the hands of learned Additional District Judge, Liaqatpur, as is evident from the judgment and decree dated 2‑9‑2000. Hence the instant civil revision.

5. Preliminary arguments have been heard and record perused.

6. Stand of the plaintiffs/petitioners is that their father Naukar Bux was owner of land, that he had executed a Tamleeknama dated 20‑10‑1984 in their favour by which he had divested himself of the suit land, that the defendants/respondents are widows of the deceased and are not entitled to claim any share out of the suit land, that both the Courts below have not appreciated evidence in respect of Tamleeknama dated 20‑10‑1984 Exh.P.1 in its true perspective, that the learned Additional District Judge has also not gone through the evidence correctly and has returned the findings which suffer from misreading and non‑reading of evidence. He thus, submits that civil revision be admitted for regular hearing.

7. A perusal of record reveals that plaintiffs/petitioners have based their claim on Tamleeknama Exh.P.1. This Tamleeknama has been prepared on a stamp paper which was purchased on 19‑6‑1982. Admittedly this Tamleeknama has been prepared on 20‑10‑1984 and there is no explanation as to why the delay of two years and 4 months took place in its execution. It has also come on record that Naukar Bux, father of the plaintiffs/petitioners has died and Mutation No. 1518, dated 12‑10‑1985 has been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners as well as defendants/respondents being his widows. Had this Tamleeknama been prepared just after the purchase of stamp paper dated 19‑6‑1982, there could be some force in the contention of the plaintiffs/petitioners that the suit land had been given to them by their deceased father. The evidence adduced by the plaintiffs/petitioners also does not support their contentions regarding alienation of land through Tamleeknama, as possession of the land is not proved to have been handed over to them.

8. Since the Tamleeknama dated 20‑10‑1984 has been prepared after two years and four months of purchase of stamp paper and has been pressed into service by filing this suit after the death of Naukar Bux, so it appears that the said document has been prepared to deprive the defendants/respondents from their legal rights. The Tamleeknama is a glaring example of a crude device on the part of plaintiffs/petitioners to dislodge rightful owners and they cannot be allowed to reap its benefit. Both the' Courts below have analysed evidence produced by the parties in its true perspective and thereafter have returned its findings which are unexceptionable. Consequently civil revision fails and is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./G‑94/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.