1992 PLP 1642 (MLD)

Zafai Ullah Cheema for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th March, 1992. In this revision petition filed by the defendant concurrent finding of fact that the respondent was the owner of the premises has been called in question.

2. The respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for declaration that he was owner of the property in dispute and as a consequential relief prayed for a decree for recovery of the possession of the same. The title of the respondent was disputed by the petitioner and petitioner's case was that he was the owner of the premises through purchase therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

3. The learned trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence held that the respondent had established that he was owner of the premises therefore a decree for declaration and possession was granted to him through judgment and decree dated 24‑2‑1988. The petitioner filed appeal against the paid ,judgment and decree before the learned lower Appellate Court which has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, . Sialkot through judgment and decree, dated 21‑7‑1988. 1t may be observed that learned counsel for petitioner challenged the finding of the two Courts below on issue No.1 only which according to him is a crucial issue.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the evidence produced by the parties in this case in his effort to show that the evidence was misread. The respondent produced Exh. P1 a document through which he purchased the land over which the construction was raised by him. He purchased this property from one Bashir. This document was written by Anwar Subedar deceased. In order to prove execution of this document he examined Muhammad Riaz as P.W.2 who is one of the marginal witnesses of this document. In order to prove that he raised the construction, he examined Abdul Hamid as P.W. 3 who stated that he received an amount of Rs.1,080 through Exh.P2 which was an amount received on account of labour charges for himself and for Inayat. Muhammad Aslam was examined as P.W. 4 who proved Exh.P.3 which is an acknowledgement by him that he received an amount of Rs.2,828 for six Girders and 120 Balas. Muhammad Arshad P.W.5 was examined who proved Exh.P4 which he executed in favour of respondent for purchase by him of bricks. Muhammad Iqbal P.W.6 proved execution of the Exh.P5 through which he received from the respondent an amount of Rs.1,450 as price of the windows and Sarya.

5. As against this evidence, the petitioner examined Riasat Ali as D.W. 2 who is also one of the marginal witnesses of EXh.PI. He stated that he put his signatures on a blank paper. He however, circumstances, he put his signatures and as to what understanding was given to him about the nature of the document which was to be written on this paper. After going through his statement I am convinced that this witness has c9nnived with the petitioner as against the respondent., The petitioner himself appeared as D.W.1. In his examination‑in‑chief he stated that he constructed the house in dispute 6/7 years before. In cross‑examination however

6. The two Courts below after considering the evidence of both the parties found that the evidence produced by the respondent was consistent and inspired confidence as against evidence produced by the present petitioner therefore, relying upon the evidence of the respondent it was held that the respondent succeeded in establishing that the property was owned by him who purchased it from Bashir and raised construction, for which documentary evidence with the evidence of P.Ws. was produced. After examining the evidence I am also fully satisfied that the respondent has produced cogent evidence to prove his ownership. .7. The two Courts below have not been shown to have committed any material irregularity and illegality in exercise of jurisdiction vested in them under the law in recording concurrent finding of fact which is based on evidence. No case has been made out for interference under section 115, C.P.C.. The revision petition has no merits which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. AA./G‑34/L Revision dismissed.