1987 PLP 1255 (CLC)

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 144‑‑Adverse possession‑‑Plea not established‑‑Effect Where no evidence was led in suit to prove ingredients of adverse possession, decree passed by Trial Court and upheld in appeal in favour of owner of land, being unexceptionable, held, would n ,‑call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of High Court. Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioner. A suit for declaration of title, with the relief of possession claimed as consequential, filed by the respondents against the petitioner with regard to agricultural land situated in village Moazamabad, Tehsil and District Sialkot was contested by him by denying their title and also raising the plea of estoppel against them and claiming adverse possession for more than 12 years in himself. Suit was set down to be tried on only 3 issues embodying these pleas of the parties. Necessary oral and documentary evidence was led by the parties which, on the side of the plaintiffs comprised Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris and also of the plaint (Exh. P.1) in Civil Suit No. 34 of 1974 filed by the defendant himself. Defendant produced copies of judgments of the Additional District Judge and the High Court as Exhs. D. 2 and D. 1, respectively. Upon a due consideration of the evidence of the parties learned trial Judge held that the plaintiffs had been proved to be the owners of the land in suit whereabout defendant has not been able to prove his adverse possession and repelling the plea of estoppel raised against the plaintiffs, he decreed their suit on 31‑1‑1983.

2. An appeal thereagainst filed by the defendant was dismissed on 3‑10‑1984 by a learned Additional District Judge by affirming the trial Court's findings on all the three issues. He has now come up to this Court on revision.

3. Learned counsel contended that petitioner's documentary evidence though mentioned in the judgments of the two Courts below had not been considered by them. Record was requisitioned to verify his contention. Learned counsel has referred to an order, dated 3‑9‑1978 passed by the Tehsildar, Sialkot in his capacity as an Assistant Collector‑I Grade and an order, dated 10‑6‑1979 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot which relate to his holding the land in dispute as a tenant and the two Courts below have reached the same conclusion with reference to his documents Exhs. D. 1 and D. 2, latter being the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Sialkot, dated 11‑11‑1982. I do not see how the omission of specific mention by those Courts of the orders of the Tehsildar and Deputy Commissioner may have caused any difference in so far as the same plea raised by the petitioner himself has been upheld in the judgment Exh. D.2. Hence, nothing turns upon even the omission of the plaintiffs to either prove the original plaint, a copy whereof is Exh. P.1, or to confront the defendant with the contents thereof. Contentions on the point fail.

4. Next, learned counsel tried to contest findings adverse to the petitioner recorded under the issue relating to adverse possession and submitted that it was proved on the record that the petitioner had not paid rent to the plaintiffs, therefore, he was entitled to be held to have proved his adverse possession. This contention, again, is without substance and is liable to be repelled straightaway with reference to Khair Muhammad v. Khuda Bakhsh and 2 others 1976 S C M R 69 wherein a similar plea, of adverse possession raised on the basis of the entries in the Jamabandis showing the petitioner to be a tenant‑at‑will without payment of rent, was repelled with the observations that adverse possession had to be proved by showing continuous and adverse possession for the prescribed period of 12 years and mere entry in the revenue record that the person or his predecessor‑in‑interest was a tenant‑at‑will, not paying Lagan or Batai owing to assertion of ownership, would not in law amount to open and overt act of hostile or adverse possession against the true owner. There is no evidence led in the suit to prove the ingredients of adverse possession.

5. Decree passed by the trial Court, as upheld in the appeal below, is unexceptionable. There has not been made out any case for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence, dismissed in limine. A . A . /G‑18/L Revision dismissed.