2008 PLP 2719 (YLR)

SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.--One Ali Muhammad alias Alia predecessor -in-interest of respondent/plaintiff was in possession of the suit-land. After his death the respondent/plaintiff took over possession of this property. He went to Chichawatni, District Sahiwal and gave possession of the disputed property to his relative, the present petitioner. Upon return, he asked the defendant/petitioner to vacate the disputed property, he refused. Hence the suit for possession. The defendant contested the suit, filed written statement, of the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, they were put to trial, whereafter the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent/appellant filed appeal which was allowed and the proceedings were remanded again to the trial Court for adjudication. The trial Court again dismissed the suit, aggrieved thereof, the respondent/plaintiff again filed appeal, which was allowed and the suit decreed. Hence the present petition by the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent was non-suited by the trial Court twice, the lower Appellate Court proceeded to upset the finings without adverting to material evidence on record, the petitioner substantiated his view point with cogent evidence and proved consideration of sale at the rate of Rs.60,000, the effect of Exh.D.1 (sale receipt) was not properly appreciated, the property is State land and therefore, the plaintiff has no right to hold on it.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently defended the impugned judgment and stated that the petitioner is an encroacher and has taken forcible possession of the suit property, the plaintiff/respondent is an aged, blind man and therefore, taking undue advantage of his disability he was dispossessed. The plaintiff proved his case by cogent evidence while the defendant/petitioner's evidence is fractured, fragmented and full of discrepancies, therefore, was rightly ignored. He relied on the following precedents:-- Khuda Bakhsh v. Mst. Zainab Mai and another 2002 YLR 2571, Muhammad Younis and another v. Mst. Muhammad Bibi and 6 others 2001 YLR 2789.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the trial Court.

5. Exh.P.2 is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1996-97, it clearly reflects that the ownership of the disputed property vests with the Provincial Government, however, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff/respondent was granted rights under the Housing Scheme by the Provincial Government. The case of the petitioner gravitates around a sale receipt, according to which, consideration is Rs.60,000 duly paid, to the plaintiff and property purchased, Exh.P.2, reflects that Provincial ownership vests the Government, the possession with respondent's father, under Provincial Government's Housing Scheme. Therefore, the respondent could transfer rights, after approval of the Provincial Government, but could not sell the property. The receipt advert to the transaction as sale, therefore, makes it highly doubtful. The petitioner advert to the price (consideration) as Rs.11,500 as D.W.1, in cross-examination, this is in contradiction with the price mentioned in the receipt (Exh.D.1) (Rs.60,000) and also stated by his witnesses, therefore, the receipt loses all sanctity and cannot be relied upon. Thus there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment, therefore, this petition has no merits and is dismissed. H.B.T./A-95/L Petition dismissed.