2004 PLP 1345 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 10th March, 2004. This order shall dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 1996, 1997 and 1998 of 1985 as the same have arisen from the consolidated judgment, dated 15-5-1985 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot and identical questions of law and facts are involved in all the three petitions.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Mehmood Khan petitioner sold his entire property in Village Derianwala, District Sialkot, through registered sale-deed, dated 21-8-1979 including his share in Shamlat Deh, in consideration of Rs.3,25,000 in favour of Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Ramzan. Thereafter Muhammad Siddique sold three different plots situated in village Abadi of Darianwala each measuring about a few Marlas, in favour of the respondents in the three revision petitions, who constructed houses on the Plots. The petitioner herein brought three suits against the respondents-defendants for possession of these plots, wherein he stated that he had sold only agricultural land in favour of Muhammad Siddique, etc./vendees, and not the land situated in village Abadi and therefore, respondents-defendants had no title in those plots. The suits were contested; issues were framed and the trial, Court/Civil Judge, Narowal, vide judgment and decree, dated 26-91983 decreed the suits by observing that Muhammad Khan, petitioner by selling his share in Shamlat Deh has not sold his ownership in the village; Abadi. The appeal filed thereagainst was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot vide judgment and decree, dated 15-5-1985 and the finding of the Civil Judge was reversed by relying on the case reported as Balwant Singh and others v. Khan Bahadur and others AIR 1930 Lah. 6, wherein it has been observed that according to para.224 of Raitigan's Digest of Customary Law the general rule is that Shamlat Deh includes Abadi Deh. It was observed that by selling the Shamlat the petitioner-plaintiff had sold the Abadi Deh and therefore, the respondents are rightful owners of the disputed plot. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was dismissed. Hence these revision petitions.

3. Both the parties have reiterated the stands taken by them before the Courts below. The only point for determination is whether Mehmood Khan, petitioner, by selling his share in Shatnlat Deh has also sold his ownership in the Abadi Deh. Relevant portion from para.243 Chapter XIII of the Customary Law in the Punjab by Om Prakash Aggarwal reads as follows:-- Shamilat Deh includes ' Abadi. Deh' and proprietors alone are owners of the ' Abadi Deh' whether occupies by houses built by themselves or by non-proprietors settled by them or not,." In para. 224 of Rattigan's Digest of Customary Law, it has been stated that the general rule is that Shamlat Deh includes Abadi Deh. In the case reported as Balwant Singh and others v. Khan Bahadur and others AIR 1930 Lah. 6 (supra) it has been ruled that:-- "Paragraph 224 lays down that as a general rule only proprietors of the village are entitled to share in the Shamilat Deh, and presumably the word ' Shamlat Deh includes ' Abadi, Deh'. Reading the two paragraphs together it follows that as a general rule the proprietors are owners of the Abadi Deh whether it is or it is not occupied by houses built by themselves or by non proprietors settled by them."

4. On the touchstone of the above law, 1 have examined the sale deed, dated 21-8-1979 Exh.D.1, executed by Mehmood Khan through which he sold his entire property including Shamlat Deh in village Derianwala in favour of Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Ramzan. It contains the following statement:--

5. In view of the document Exh.D.1, the sale-deed executed by Mehmood Khan and the -law stated above, I agree with the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that Mehmood Khan by selling his share in Shamlat Deh had also sold his ownership in Abadi Deh. The learned Civil Judge fell `in error while decreeing the suit of the Petitioner-plaintiff by misinterpreting the law and misreading of sale deed Exh.D.1, which error has been rectified by the learned Additional District Judge by accepting the appeal. No illegality or irregularity as been committed warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under section. 115, C.P.C. Resultantly, the revision petitions fail and are dismissed. H.B.T./M-202/L Revisions dismissed.