2002 PLP 4030 (YLR)

Ch. Habib Ahmad for Petitioners. Ijaz Akbar for Respondents. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th June, 2001. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed a suit against the petitioners and the Remaining respondents for possession of the suit‑land. It was stated in the plaint that the land forms part of the Abadi of village Tajowal wherein the said respondents are owners and that the same has been occupied by the petitioners illegally who are not owners in the said Revenue estate but are owners in Sabirpur. The plea taken by the petitioners were that they are in occupation for more than 12 years having raised a house and as such the suit cannot proceed against them. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28‑3‑1993. The first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Shakargarh on 3‑6‑1996.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the plaintiff/respondents had failed to prove the ownership of the suit‑land and as such the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondents, on the other hand, contends that it stands admitted in the evidence of the petitioner themselves that the respondents are the owners in the said village and that the land is Abadi of the same while the petitioners are non‑proprietors. 3‑A. I have gone through the records. Exh.P.12 is the Misl‑e‑Haqiat for the year 1967‑68 for village Tajowal recording the plaintiffs/respondents to be shareholders by purchase. So far as the petitioners are concerned it stands admitted in the evidence of Ghulam Din petitioner No.1 (D.W.1) himself that the land is located within the red line Abadi of Tajowal and that they are not the owners of Tajowal. Neither they have purchased the land. He alleges that they are in possession. He also admits that all the owners in the village are the owners of the suit‑land. In the said state of evidence the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners had no force. Admittedly the land is the Abadi of Tajowal and the plaintiffs/respondent have proved themselves to be owners of the same and as such in the absence of any plea that the possession of the petitioners is relatable to a title or a licence being claimed under any other owners of the said estate, they are liable to vacate the said land. No case stands made out for interference with the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned lower Courts within the meaning of section 115, C.P.C. The civil revision is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./G‑190/L Revision dismissed.