1989 PLP 684 (SCMR)

JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑We accept the explanation of the learned counsel in C.M.P. No.605 of 1988 and we hereby restore Civil Petition No.673 of 1982 which had previously been dismissed for non‑prosecution on the part of the petitioners by this Court on 6 August, 1988. We proceed to dispose of Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.673 of 1982 on merits. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 1 June, 1982 whereby the civil revision of the petitioners was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners purchased the disputed land in 19.% from respondents 1 to

8. At that time Niaz Ahmad respondent whose share was 4 kanals was a minor. The predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners produced sale‑deed for registration but the Revenue Officer declined to mutate the share of Niaz Ahmad respondent on the ground of his minority. When Niaz Ahmad respondent attained majority he did not agree to the transfer of his share. In the meantime in the course of the consolidation operation the 4 Kanals of Niaz Ahmad respondent were transferred to Jahangir predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents 9 to

16. The case of the petitioners was that since they were owners m possession of the disputed land, the alienation of a portion of the said land in favour of Jahangir was illegal and ineffective as against their rights. It was in this background that they filed a suit which was contested by the respondents. The suit was eventually dismissed by the Civil Judge. The appeal of the petitioners was subsequently also dismissed by the Additional District Judge and finally the revision was dismissed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued before us that the petitioners had been in possession of the disputed land for a long time and thus had acquired proprietary rights even on account of their adverse possession. Consequently they were entitled to the declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession including the share of Niaz Ahmad respondent which was also in their continuous possession for the last 21‑1/2 years. From the perusal of the record it is evident that this plea of the petitioners had not been accepted at any stage. The correct position was that they were put into possession of the disputed land by the predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents 1 to 8 and therefore they were owners on account of the sale‑deed executed in their favour. Consequently it is also evident that Niaz Ahmad respondent was minor at the time of the execution of the said sale‑deed although A he along with others was a co‑sharer in the said property. In such circumstances the possession of the petitioners could not be considered as adverse at any time before the institution of the suit. All the Courts below have given a concurrent finding as against the petitioners after carefully attending to the question of adverse possession. Since this is the position no interference is called for so far as the merits of this case are concerned. The petition is accordingly dismissed. AA./I‑59/S Leave to appeal refused.