2007 PLP 1896 (MLD)

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.

Muhammad Azeem, the predecessor -in-interest of the respondents, brought a suit for the declaration and permanent injunction claiming that he is in possession of the land A measuring 5-Marlas (described in the plaint) as owner, which formed part of the `Abadi Deh' and the petitioners should be restrained from denying his ownership and interfering in his possession. The petitioners contested the suit and out of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed, the most important being the issue No.1 about the ownership of the plaintiff/respondent. The parties produced their evidence and the learned trial Court on the basis of the appreciation of such evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff/respondent has proved himself to be the owner and thus, the judgment and decree, dated 8-3-1999 was passed, whereby the suit was decreed. Against the above, the petitioners filed an appeal, but without any successes, which was dismissed on 11-5-1999.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends. that there is no documentary evidence produced by the respondents to show their ownership; the land in question though falls within the `Abadi Deh', but the "Masavi" and `Shajra Abadi' have not been tendered in evidence; it is only the oral evidence 'on account of which the respondents claim their ownership and such evidence was inadequate to prove the issue. It is also submitted that the plaintiff/respondent earlier had filed a similar suit, which was dismissed and, therefore, the present suit was barred by the principle of re judicata.

3. Heard. As regards the question about the ownership of the land is concerned, the petitioners are not the original owners in the Mauza, but they have purchased some land from `Pattidar' and not airy area in the `Abadi Deh' rather outside the Abadi, through registered sale-deed (Exh.D.10), thus on account of having purchased such area, they had not become the owners of the specific part of `Abadi Deh', which is admittedly in possession of the respondents. Besides, there is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below may be on account of appreciation of oral evidence, that the respondents are the owners and no misreading and non-reading has been established.

4. So far as the argument, that `Masavi' and `Shajra Abadi' have not been produced, suffice it to say that the petitioners could have produced their documents, so as to discredit the respondents' case. For the other argument about the res judicata, no issue has been framed and no evidence has been produced by the petitioners, therefore, it is on account of the above that ho finding can be given on the said proposition.

5. In the light of above, this revision petition has no merits and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./A-114/L Revision dismissed.