2005 PLP 1703 (SCMR)

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 10th June, 2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore- in Civil Revision No.1285 of 2002.

2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondents/ plaintiffs filed a suit against the petitioners for possession of the property description whereof was mentioned in the plaint. Suit was contested by the petitioners, by filing written statement denying therein the entitlement of respondents to claim possession. Learned trial Court recorded evidence produced by both the sides and concluded as follows:-- ".... Mere assertion that the plaintiffs have been shown as owners in the record of Excise and Taxation Department is not sufficient to hold that the plaintiffs are owners of the suit house. Even otherwise, there is no independent, cogent and convincing evidence on the record to prove that the suit house was given by father of the plaintiffs to the defendants for residential purpose. Admittedly, the defendants are in occupation of the suit house since 1964 and under the law possession is 9/10th of ownership. In these circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed totally to prove their title and delivery of possession to the defendants qua the suit house. Resultantly this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants."

3. Against the above judgment/decree respondents preferred appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Chiniot vide judgment, dated 11th April, 2002. Petitioners being aggrieved from the judgment of the Appellate Court filed revision petition which has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondents have failed to produce documents to substantiate that Dost Muhammad, their predecessor-in-interest, was the owner of the property but the High Court under wrong impression considered him to be the owner of the property on the basis of a P.T.O., whereas according to him no such P.T.O. was produced before the Court, as such they had no proprietary rights in respect of disputed property on the basis of P.T.1 Exh.P.2 issued by the Excise Department. He further stated that as far as P.T.1 Exh.P.2 issued by the Excise and Taxation Department is concerned, it cannot be considered sufficient to furnish proof of the ownership of Dost Muhammad. Therefore, accordingly learned High Court by misreading the documentary evidence has dismissed the revision petition filed by the A petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the caveator stated that P.T.O. was issued in favour of Dost Muhammad, but when we called upon him to show its copy he failed to do so. However, he contended that in pursuance of documentary evidence produced from the Excise and Taxation Department, the ownership of Dost Muhammad stands proved on record. After hearing learned counsel of both the sides and having gone through the impugned judgment as well as judgment of learned Additional District Judge we grant leave to examine the respective contention of the parties counsel. Pending decision of the appeal arising out of this petition parties are directed to maintain status quo. M.H./L-8/S Leave granted.