2010 PLP 781 (MLD)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of land measuring 5-Marla, 209 Sq. ft. situated at Hadbast Mauza, Ichhra, Lahore with the contention that the plaintiff purchased the above said land vide sale-deed registered on 26-6-1978. That the defendant was tenant under the previous vendor and after purchase of suit land, petitioner filed eviction petition against the tenant but same was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. The petitioner further contends that defendant has got no concern with the suit-land and he is illegal occupant without any authority. The defendant was requested to hand over the vacant possession of suit-land after removing the super-structure, but he failed to do so, hence this suit.

2. The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement on the ground that he never remained as tenant in the suit property and further that by way of adverse possession, the defendant has become owner of the same and prayed for dismissal of suit.

3. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed. ISSUES: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession through demolition of the suit property? OPP (2) Whether the defendant has acquired proprietary title over the suit property through an adverse possession of more than 20 years? OPD (3) Whether the suit property is not properly described? If so, what is the correct description? OPD (4) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD (5) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of preliminary objection No.5? OPD (6) Relief.

4. After recording of evidence of the parties, Mr. Zia-ul-Qamar, learned Civil Judge, Lahore decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed appeal in the Court of District Judge, Lahore which was entrusted to Mr. Shoukat Iqbal Ahmed, learned Additional District Judge, Lahore who vide his judgment and decree, dated 5-12-2001 also dismissed the appeal, hence this civil revision.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contents that impugned judgment and decree as well as judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court is against the law and facts. The impugned judgments and decrees is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence and has further contended that in fact, the disputed property falls in Khasra No.6618 which was owned by the father of Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Nazir etc. and said piece of land was given to him as Bakhshish about fourty years ago where he constructed super-structure. Learned counsel further contends that report of local commission is fake and against the reference etc. Learned counsel further contends that civil revision be accepted and the impugned judgment and decree as well as judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court to set aside and the suit of the respondent be dismissed.

6. Arguments heard, record perused.

7. Perusal of record shows that the respondent purchased the suit house through a registered sale deed which was never challenged by the petitioner nor proceeded for cancellation of said registered sale-deed. The contents of plaint and the statement made by the respondent was fully corroborated by oral as well as documentary evidence, the report of local commission also fully supported the version of the respondent. It was further corroborated Muhammad Sarwar son of Khushi Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad son of Hassan Din as P.W. and P.W.2. respectively. Plaintiff has further produced Exh.P1 and Exh.P2 which are sale deeds. In rebuttal, the defendant could not lead any documentary evidence. The petitioner/defendant simply produced three D. Ws. whose statements are contradictory. Even otherwise, contents of registered documents could not be rebutted with oral evidence. The version of defendant is also contradictory. At one place, he contends that the suit land was given to him as Bakshish about fourty years ago and on the other hand, he claims that he be declared owner of the suit house on the basis of adverse possession. Both the contentions are altogether in-consistent with each other. There is a concurrent finding of facts against the petitioner/defendant.

8. In the light of above discussion, the civil revision is devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. A.R.K./D-4/L Petition dismissed.