1993 PLP 768 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Discretionary granted to plaintiff by Courts below‑‑ Appropriateness‑‑‑Plaintiff, although failed to prove his ownership of land through adverse possession yet Courts below protected his possession against its threatened disturbance by District Council except in accordance with due process of law‑‑‑Such relief granted to plaintiff was the only possible relief which could be allowed to him and that having already been allowed to him, he had nothing further to grieve about. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑R. 115‑‑‑Adverse possession‑‑‑Finding of Courts below on question of adverse possession being concurrent and in, accordance with material on record, no interference in revisional jurisdiction was called for. Syed Riaz‑ul‑Hassan Gillani for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th October, 1991. . This Civil Revision .by the plaintiff is against agreed judgments of the Courts below holding that he had not acquired ownership rights in the land in dispute on account of adverse possession. Plaintiffs suit was dismissed on 28‑2‑1981 and first appeal failed on 15‑9‑1981.

2. Plaintiff claimed adverse possession on a piece of land measuring 11 Kanals and 7 Marlas in Khasra No.158 at Mauza Muridke in Tehsil Ferozewala of District Sheikhupura, since his forefathers for the past more than a century and consequent acquisition of ownership rights in it. It was asserted ‑that a house was constructed on the land in dispute for the past several years and District Council had no right or interest in the land to dislodge his possession from it. Though the defendant to the suit initially put in appearance through its representative and filed reply to the application for issuance of temporary injunction, yet it failed to appear later and was proceeded against ex parte on 17‑7‑1980 by the trial Court. Plaintiff gave ex parte proof in absence of the defendant. On its examination, the trial Court found that the plaintiff was not owner of the land in dispute and had also not acquired prescriptive title to it on account of holding it adversely, but since he was in possession, defendant could not dislodge him except in due process of law. Consequently, the suit was partially decreed. In appeal, decision of the trial Court was maintained. Against these two judgments of the Courts below, plaintiff filed a revision in this Court. It was admitted to hearing on 20‑3‑1982.

3. At the hearing, Syed Riazul Hassan Gillani, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Courts below did not read the record correctly and ignored from their consideration not only the entries in revenue records but also the oral unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff.. On record, neither ownership of the plaintiff is established nor his adverse possession on the land in dispute. In his oral statement as P.W.1, plaintiff averred that the land in dispute was in his possession for the past ninety years. He was. born in it and was its owner. He further deposed that he had not paid anything for his user to any person nor had any person interfered with his possession. In addition to his own oral statement, he produced copies of revenue papers to establish his ownership and possession. In revenue records, Khasra No. 158 is recorded in the ownership of the Provincial Government and is shown in possession of District Board through the plaintiff as its non‑occupancy tenant paying no rent on account of assertion of its sale. Though ownership rights in immovable property could be acquired' by adverse possession against the Government in the same manner as against a. private party, yet a person claiming title adversely to the Government must establish his adverse possession for a period of sixty years at the minimum. Article 149 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, provides a period of sixty years for this purpose. Burden of proving adverse possession on the property belonging to State heavily lies on the claimant. Neither the entries in the revenue records nor self‑serving statement of the plaintiff was sufficient to hold that the plaintiff held the land to dispute adversely for a period of about ninety years and had acquired ownership rights in it. As said above, revenue records showed that the property belonged to Provincial Government and was in possession of District Board through plaintiff as its non‑occupancy tenant. This kind of entries in revenue papers were wholly insufficient to sustain plea of adverse possession. Similarly, mere oral testimony of the plaintiff in itself did not advance materially his plea of ownership of the land‑in‑dispute or that of his adverse possession on it. Though, the plaintiff had failed to proves ownership of the land, yet the Courts below protected it against threatened disturbance by the District Council except in accordance with due process of law. In the existing circumstances, this was the only possible relief which could be allowed to the plaintiff and that having been already allowed to him he has nothing further to grieve about. .

4. In view of the aforesaid, civil revision is properly concluded by agreed findings of the Courts below and is not open to a further review for interference in revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Accordingly, it is dismissed. As the respondent failed to appear and oppose, I shall make no order as to costs of this civil revision. Records be returned. A.A/F-2/.L Revision dismissed.