2004 PLP 380 (SCMR)

TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.

Leave to- appeal is sought against the judgment dated 8-11-2001 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court , Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No.641 of 1993 filed by the petitioners was dismissed maintaining the concurrent findings of the Courts below. This case has got a chequered history. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration claiming themselves to be the owners in possession of the disputed property on the basis of Nautore and adverse possession, while the respondents filed a suit for the restoration of possession on the plea that they had been dispossessed illegally by the petitioners. Both the suits were decreed by different learned Civil Judges, which factum had given rise to contradictory decrees. Both the parties filed cross-appeals, whereupon the learned Additional. District Judge. Bhakkar, vide his judgment dated 9-1-1984,set aside both the decrees and remanded the suits to the trial Court with the direction that the same be consolidated, re-heard and disposed of by one judgment. Subsequent to the remand, issues were framed on 29-2-1986 and the parties relied upon their earlier evidence. However, some oral and documentary evidence were also put on record. The learned Civil Judge, Bhakkar, after evaluating the entire evidence brought on record, dismissed the declaratory suit filed by the petitioners and decreed that of the respondents vide his consolidated judgment dated 22-10-1987. Two appeals were filed against the above judgment and the learned District Judge, Bahkkar, dismissed the same through his judgment dated 9-1-1993. The petitioner then preferred Civil Revision No.641 of 1993 before the Lahore High Court, which too met the same fate and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge through his order dated 8-11-2001, impugned herein. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the entire material placed on record. We have noticed that the petitioners have totally failed, to prove that their predecessor-in-interest had entered upon the disputed property as Nautore. They could not being any document on record to establish all terms and conditions of Nautore between the parties. The learned District Judge while dismissing their appeals had observed that the petitioners were decidedly tenants of the disputed property and in the presence of Revenue Record they could not be termed as owners of the same as in the record they had been shown as tenants. It has also been brought on record through confidence-inspiring evidence that they were tenants and on the basis of permissive possession they could not succeed on the plea of adverse possession. The learned District Judge has discussed the entire evidence in paragraph 11 of his judgment non-suiting the petitioners.. This determination reads as under:-- "

11. The, documents produced by both the parties show that undoubtedly the respondents are recorded as owners of the property in dispute. Ghulam Rasul son of Allah Bakhsh, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was recorded as Ghair Dakhilkar in the column of cultivation, while in -the last column was the entry of 'Basharah Malikan Bawajah Nautore'. So, the only favourable element in favour of the appellants is entry in the last column of the Jamabandi, that they were recorded as Basharah Malikan Bawajah Nautore. The question arises as to whether this entry is sufficient to declare them as the owners in possession on account of their adverse possession. It .has been held in PLD 1986 SC 1991 that the entry of the column of Lagan that is not corroborated by any evidence cannot take preference over the column of cultivation. The parties are relying on the Lagan column as against cultivation column shall have to produce evidence in support of its plea. The evidence produced by the appellants no doubt showed the entry in their favour in Lagan column but the entry in the column of the cultivation showed them as the tenants. The other authority on the subject is PLD 1989 SC 485, wherein it was held that the permissive possession cannot be converted into an adverse possession unless it is proved that the person in possession asserted an adverse title to the property to the knowledge of true owners for a period of 12 years or more. It is also a settled law that the person claiming the adverse possession have to establish continuance and uninterrupted possession about prescribed period of 12 years. The mere entry in the Revenue Record is not sufficient to claim the ownership on the basis of adverse possession. The latest law on the subject is reported in 1991 SCMR 2063. It has been held by their lordships that the claim of the ownership on the basis, of adverse possession is nothing but Dhandli. " The factual controversy on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence has been determined in favour of the respondents by the two Courts below and the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has also maintained the same by critical appraisal of pleas taken by the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Resultantly; for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./S-217/S Leave refused.