2007 PLP 1756 (MLD)

SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.

This petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 27-3-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge Jhang affirming the judgment and decree, dated 20-11-2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Jhang whereby the suit for declaration filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed.

2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present dispute. are that the respondents/plaintiffs held a suit for declaration claiming that they are owners in possession of land measuring 1 kanal, 15 marlas and 4 kanals and 7 marlas located in Killa No.172, Killa No.44 in Square No.119 in the Revenue Estate of Shorkot Sumali, Tehsil Shorkot and District Jhang. The petitioners/defendants filed written statement raised preliminary objection, whereafter the Trial. Court framed issues, the parties were put to trial, led evidence thereafter the suit was decreed. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed, hence the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the (sic) possession of petitioner stood proved by cogent and tangible evidence, thus the suit should have been dismissed on basis of adverse possession further the Revenue Record was not properly appreciated the report tendered by the Tehsildar, Shorkot did not reflect the correct position, it was given undue weightage and importance by the Courts below, thus jurisdiction was improperly exercised concurrently by both Courts below. He relied on (1991 SCMR 2063) titled Maqbool Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan and (2003 CLC 200) titled Kazim Imam Jan v. Muhammad Jawaid and 4 others.

4. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned judgment.

5. The record reflects that five issues were framed of the divergent pleadings of the parties, from the contents of the written statement and the evidence of the parties, the petitioners never raised the plea of adverse possession, therefore, they cannot now make out a case beyond their pleading. Therefore, the contentions qua adverse possession have no basis and are accordingly repelled. There is preponderance of documentary evidence to establish to ownership of the respondent. Tehsildar, Sialkot prepared a demarcation report with a sketch report Exh. P.1. and Exh. P.2., it clearly established that petitioners illegally encroached the property of the respondents. The petitioners through a Headmaster participated in these proceedings, thus they cannot now take exception to this report. The Court below appraised this report and correctly appreciated its impact and import. The petitioner has not placed quality evidence to off-set the effect of this report. The law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable. Thus, the findings of both Courts below are in consonance with law and evidence, there is a concurrent finding against the petitioner, no jurisdiction error, material illegality or irregularity has been pointed out resultantly this petition has no merits and is dismissed. H.B.T./E-9/L Revision dismissed.