2002 PLP 3391 (YLR)

Nemo for Respondents, Date of hearing: 4th February, 2002. On 17‑6‑1992 the respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the petitioners and respondent No.2. In the plaint it was stated that, respondent No. 1 is in possession of the suit‑land measuring 15 Marlas since last 100 years but the petitioners are trying to dispossess him and that he had been requesting them not to interfere with this possession and not to "raise construction" on the suit‑land but they are adamant. With these averments he sought a decree for permanent injunction. The petitioners contested the suit by filing a written statement wherein they have stated that the suit‑land was owned by Fatima Bibi and Muhammad Akram who sold it to the petitioner No.1 and Mutation No.504 was entered; that statement of the vendors have been recorded. but respondent No.1 has obtained stay order in this case. It was specifically denied that respondent No.1 is in possession rather it was stated that it is the petitioner No.1 who is in possession. Following issues were framed:‑ (1) Whether the plaintiff has got neither cause of action nor locus standi to file the suit? (2) Whether the suit does not lie and is not maintainable in its present form? (3) Whether description of suit property is not correct, if so what is the correct one? (4) Whether Mutation No.504 was got incorporated bonafidely and defendant No.1 is bona fide purchaser for value if so its effect? (5) Whether plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for injunction as prayed for in the plaint? Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 25‑7‑1994. A first appeal filed by respondent No. 1, however, was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, who proceeded to allow the same and decreed the suit of respondent No. 1.

2. Learned counsel contends that evidence on record has been misread and in fact learned Additional District Judge has contravened the several judgments of Supreme Court in the matter of entries pertaining to column of "Lagan" while passing impugned judgment and decree. Respondent No.2 is pro forma while respondent No.1 has been served and is represented by Syed Fayyaz Ahmad whose name duly listed in the cause list for today. But no one has turned up despite calls. The respondents are accordingly proceeded against ex parte.

3. I have gone through the record of this civil revision, with the assistance of the learned counsel. The learned Additional District Judge has placed implicit reliance on the entry Now it is admitted position on record that land is owned by Fatima Bibi and Muhammad Akram and this is what the entire Revenue Records states. There is no plea and there is no evidence on record as to how the respondent No.1 is claiming ownership of the land By now it is well settled that only entry in column of ownership and column of possession enjoy presumption of correctness and that no such presumption is attached to the entry of column No.8 i.e. of "Lagan". It has further been held that the person relying on the said entry has to independently prove his ownership. Reference may be made to the case of Shad Muhammad v. Khan Poor (PLD 1986 SC 91). Now learned Additional District Judge has proceeded to observe in para.7 of his judgment that in the presence of said column No.8, the learned trial Court could not have dismissed the suit. This observation has been made in direct contravention of law laid down by the Supreme Court and renders the impugned Judgment and decree to be without lawful authority.

4. I also deem it necessary to note here that the learned Additional District Judge has also misread evidence on record. P.W.2 Muhammad Ali is the only witness apart from P.W.1 who is son and attorney of respondent No.1. Now he has proceeded to state as follows in his cross‑examination:‑‑

5. In the said state of evidence on record the learned Additional District Judge has proceeded to declare the respondent No.1 to be owner of the suit land and to extinguish the title of petitioner No.1 validly, acquired from the admitted owners.

6. This civil revision is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 3‑1‑1995 of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat is set aside while that passed by the learned trial Court dated 25‑7‑1994 dismissing suit of respondent No.1 is restored. No order as to costs. Q.M.H./ M.A.K./P‑88/L Revision allowed