2002 PLP 667 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑Proof‑‑‑Entry in Jamabandi by itself was not sufficient to constitute adverse possession‑‑‑Mere entry in the Revenue Record was not an assertion of hostile title and mere non‑payment of rent by the tenant or a mere entry in Jamabandi was not such clear evidence for suggesting the adverse possession. Lala and others v. Mst. Jantay 1968 SCMR 131 ref. Qazi Khurshid Alam for Appellants. Aziz Ahmad Malik for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th September, 2001. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4‑11‑1992 awarded by the District Judge. Bhakkar whereby the appeal of the respondents was accepted, the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 2‑12‑1986 was set aside and the suit of the respondents was decreed.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the respondents filed a suit for possession of land measuring 78 Kanals and 15 Marls out of Khasra NoE.474, 477 and 476 of Village Dhap Sial, Tehsil and District Bhakkar. The petitioners contested the suit and claimed that they are in possession of the land for more than 50/60 years. The petitioners claimed as Basharah Malikan Bawajah Nautore. Adverse 'possession was also claimed. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and the contesting parties produced their evidence. After hearing, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree, dated 2‑12‑1986. The respondents preferred an appeal which was allowed and consequently the judgment and decree of the trial Court was reversed and the suit of the respondents was decreed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued, that the First Appellate Court not only misread the evidence on record but also mis‑applied the law. It was further contended that the statement of D. W.1 to D. W.6 was not properly appreciated which clearly established the possession of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the District Judge. Bhakkar.

4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Exh.P.1 is a copy of Register Haqdaran for the year 1967‑

68. It shows that the title of the land vests with the respondents. The possession of the petitioners was shown as tenant in Column No.4 of the Jamabaudi. However, there is an entry in Column No.8 of the Jamabandi where it is mentioned "Basharah Malikan Nautore". The other documents are Khasra Girdawaries Exh.P.2 to Exh. P.6 from Kharif 1973 to Kharif 1979. These documents contain similar entries which find mention in Exh.P.1. The statement of D. W.1 to D. W.6 was also examined and it was observed that the petitioners were in possession of the land. The entry in Jamabandi by itself is not sufficient to constitute adverse possession. Mere entry in the Revenue Record is not an assertion of hostile title. Mere non‑payment of rent or a mere entry in Jamabandi is not such clear evidence, for suggesting the adverse possession. A reference is made to a case titled Lala and others v. Mst. Jantay reported as 1968 SCMR

131. The evidence as produced by the parties shows that the suit land is in the ownership of the I respondents and the petitioners are shown as tenants. Mere entry "Basharah Malikan Bawajah Nautore" does not prove the status of the petitioners. Reasons being that if the land is held by a tenant under the paramount title of another person he shall continue to be a tenant even if the possession of the land was required by him on account of Nautore. The District Judge, Bhakkar has correctly held that Bashrah Malikan Bawajah Nautore does not amount .to adverse possessit nd once a tenant is always a tenant. In view of my findings hereinbefore, I do not find any infirmity or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Accordingly, the revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./A‑326/L Revision dismissed.