2006 PLP 1480 (MLD)

SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.

The respondents filed a suit for possession of land measuring 1 kanal, 1 marla out of total land measuring 5 kanals, 12 marlas in Khasra No. 5020, Khewat No.177 situated in Chak Balyana Tehsil and District Kasur. The suit was contested by the petitioners who filed their written statement jointly and out of the divergent pleas of the parties, seven issues were framed. Learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 27-5-2004, decreed the suit in A favour of the respondents, against the petitioner and respondent No.2. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree which met the same fate and was dismissed to the extent of the petitioners. The petitioners through the instant petition have assailed the concurrent findings of the two Courts below on the ground that the judgment was modified to the extent of Bagh Masih as such the petition is against the judgments at variance, the proceedings of demarcation in violation of the Financial Commissioner's instruction as adopted by the High Court in High Court Rules and Orders, Volume-V, Chapter 1-D. The petitioners were unrepresented and were condemned unheard. The suit was instituted on 22-12-1997 beyond the period of limitation and explanation given in this respect by respondents is unbelievable and the learned Court has ignored completely the effect of Exh. D-1 to D-4.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has argued that the ownership of the petitioners qua the suit-land stands established from the record-of-rights pertaining to the years 1996-97 (Exh.P7), record-of-rights for the years, 2000-2001 (Exh.P8) and record? of rights for the years 1992-93 (Exh.P9). Learned counsel then submitted that none of the appellants appeared as a witness nor produced any evidence to rebut the ownership of the property. The appellants have asserted in their written statement that land measuring 1 kanal in their possession was purchased from Jamal-ud-Din paternal-uncle of the respondents but there is no proof in this respect. The property was demarcated and demarcation proceedings were signed by Bagh Masih respondent No.2. The demarcation proceedings were not assailed in any higher forum and as such attained finality. Learned counsel in support of his contention has relied upon the case of "Sher Ali Khan v. Miran Shah and 5 others" (1995 MLD 308).

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.

5. Learned Courts below after appraising the evidence of the parties, have drawn their conclusion that the petitioners are in illegal possession of the land belonging to the respondents. The only instance pointed out regarding misreading of the evidence is pertaining to Exh.D-1 to D-3, which according to learned counsel for the petitioners, were ignored. Exh.D-1 is the copy of record-of-rights pertaining to the years, 1992-93 which shows that Sooba Masih son of Essa as owner of land measuring 1 kanal vide Khasra No. 4918. Exh.D2 Khasra Girdawri reveals the same fact and Exh.D3 is a copy of the mutation showing that the property was purchased by Sooba Masih from Abdur Rashid. These documents do not in any manner prove the ownership of the petitioners qua the suit-land measuring 1 kanal, 1 marla falling in Khasra No.5020. The petitioners have failed to prove that suit-land measuring 1 Kanal, 1 Marla falling in Khasra No.5020 was purchased by them or they are rightful owner of this property. The demarcation proceedings were carried and the land of respondent No.l was demarcated without any objection from the petitioners. The demarcation proceedings were not challenged in any other forum and had attained finality. The impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, do not suffer c from the defects of non-reading or misreading of evidence or there is a defect of wrong assumption of law. I do not see any infirmity in the concurrent findings of learned Courts below, to interfere in my revisional jurisdiction.

6. For the foregoing, I do not see any merit in this petition to un?settle the judgments passed by the two Courts below concurrently. This revision petition has no force and is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./P-15/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.