1989 PLP 3449 (MLD)

‑‑‑Art. 144‑‑Adverse possession‑‑Appellant's failure to point out any material illegality or irregularity justifying interference with concurrent finding of two Courts below to the effect that appellant had not been able to establish his adverse possession over property in dispute for over 12 years‑‑No contrary view, held. could be taken in second appeal‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100. Birjees Nagi for Appellant. . Ch. Abdur Rehman Cheema for Respondent No.

1. Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 and

3. Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1989. This regular second appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by the respondents, Nazir Ahmad and two others, against the appellant, Muhammad Din. It was alleged by the respondents that they purchased certain land, adjoining the land of the appellant, and that the appellant encroached upon their land to the extent of 3 Marlas and 7 Sarsais. They prayed for possession of the land encroached upon by the appellant. While resisting the suit, the appellant denied ownership of the respondents and pleaded adverse possession. It was held by the Civil Judge, who heard the suit,' that the appellant had failed to prove adverse possession. He also upheld the plea of encroachment raised by the respondents. Resultantly, the suit was decreed. Appellant went in appeal before an Additional District Judge, but in vain. Hence this second appeal.

2. Main question involved in this case is whether the appellant has become owner of the disputed property through adverse possession. Admittedly, there is no documentary evidence supporting his plea. He examined two witnesses, A namely, Ahmad (D.W.1) and Rehmat Ali (D.W.2) and also himself entered the witness‑box as D.W.3. Although it was stated by them that the appellant was in, possession of the disputed property since 1947 yet none of them said that it was adverse possession. On the other hand, it was stated by Ahmad and Rehmat Ali that the appellant occupied the said property with the permission of the village Chaudhris (owners of the estate). The appellant is a village menial. This indicates that his possession was permissive in nature. There are also contradictions in the statements of the appellant's witnesses. For instance, it was stated by Ahmad that the appellant had built one Kotha having a boundary wall, but it was stated by Rehmat Ali that he had raised six or seven Kothas. According to the appellant, he constructed four houses together with a pen for the sheep. When cross‑examined, he raised the number of Kothas to six. It seems that this was done by him when he was reminded that Rehmat Ali had given the number of Kothas as six or seven. This type of evidence can hardly inspire confidence. It also stands rebutted by the evidence of the respondents. Their evidence comprises of statements of Muhammad Siddiq (P.W.4), Muhammad Sharif (P.W.5) and the statement of the respondent, Nazir Ahmad as P.W.6. There is also report of Patwari, copy Exh.P.2, I saying that it was on 23rd February, 1967 that demarcation proceedings were taken out at the instance of the respondents which revealed that the disputed land belonged to them and it was in occupation of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant did not find any fault with the evidence of the respondents. He also did not point out any material illegality or irregularity justifying interference with the concurrent finding of the learned lower Courts to the effect that the appellant C had not been able to establish his adverse possession for over 12 years. I, therefore, see no reason to take a contrary view.

3. Resultantly, this regular second appeal fails. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. H.B.T./M‑1322/L Appeal dismissed.