2007 PLP 2327 (YLR)

SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.

This civil revision is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 14--5-2005 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment and decree dated 23-2-2005 was accepted.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this civil revision are that the petitioners filed a suit for possession in respect of land measuring one Marla situated in Abadi Deh against the respondent. It was contended in the plaint that the property in dispute was owned by the plaintiffs/ petitioners by way of inheritance and had been given to the respondent in 1968 who had constructed a shop thereupon. The respondent was directed to return the land which he declined. In the above circumstances the suit was filed on 5-4-1999. The respondent entered appearance and contested the suit. He set - up the plea that the land in question was actually evacuee property belonging to one Jewan Das which had been allotted to Shah Jahan under Scheme No.7 and the respondent claimed to have entered into possession of the suit-land pursuant to an agreement to sell executed by Shah Jahan in' his favour. On the divergent pleadings of the parties issues were framed, evidence was led, whereafter the trial Court vide its judgment dated 23-2-2005 decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved the respondent filed an appeal which was accepted vide the impugned appellate judgment and decree dated 14-5-2005.

3. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended with this petition has been perused.

4. It is the present petitioner who had filed the suit for possession on the basis of title. The onus was on the plaintiffs/ petitioners to prove that title to the suit land. No documentary evidence in support thereof was on the record. The petitioners, rested their case on oral evidence. Furthermore, one of the original, plaintiffs namely Abdul Rasheed entered the witness box as P.W. and stated that the suit-land had devolved onto the three plaintiffs through inheritance. He also conceded that one of the original plaintiffs Ahmad Khan had sisters. The said statement for all intent and purposes amounts to an admission that there were co-owners in .the property i.e. the sisters of Ahmed Khan plaintiff who had not been impleaded as a party in the original suit. The absence of all co-owners in a suit for possession based on title is fatal to the suit. Furthermore, the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs is also not very credible. The plaintiffs claim to have given' the suit-land to the respondent way back in 1968 free of charge or rent. And in a criminal complaint filed by one of the plaintiffs against the. respondent it was alleged that the respondent had in fact encroached upon the suit-land. The said criminal complaint is on the record as Exh.D.3. In the above circumstances the first appellate Court rightly accepted the appeal filed by the respondent. No exception can be taken to the impugned judgment and decree which is based on cogent reasons and is in conformity with law. No material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction has been pointed out by he learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. This revision is without any merit 11 and is hereby dismissed. F.B./M-235/L Petition dismissed.