Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Concurrent finding of fact of two Courts below, that half of disputed land was allotted to respondents with free consent of petitioner and that suit filed by petitioner against respondent was time‑barred, being based on evidence on record, held, could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of High Court.

Muhammad Sharif Khokhar for Petitioner.

This revision petition has been filed against a judgment dated 8‑4‑1986 of the learned Additional District Judge Jhang, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner having been brought from a judgment dated 18‑11‑1984 of the learned Civil Judge, Shorkot dismissing the suit instituted by the petitioner.

2. The said suit was instituted by the petitioner on 17‑4‑1980 against the respondents in the Civil Court at Shorkot for a declaration that an order dated 9‑11‑1966 passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner for including the respondents as co‑sharers alongwith the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the land measuring 215 Kanals 11 Marlas situated at Mauza Qaim Bharwana, Tehsil Shorkot was illegal, without authority, void and ineffective as to the rights of the petitioner who was the only allottee and entitled to have his name entered in the revenue record. A permanent injunction for restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and use of the property was also sought. The petitioner claimed that he had been allotted the said property under Upgrading Scheme Martial Law Regulation 64 in the year 1960 about which he deposited all the instalments in the Government Treasury, as such he was entitled to enjoy the property. The petitioner further alleged that the respondents on the strength of a forged deed made an application to the Revenue Authorities on behalf of the petitioner without his knowledge and thereby in collusion with the lower staff of the Deputy Land Commissioner Shorkot, secured the order dated 9‑11‑1966 whereunder the respondents were taken as allottees of half of the property in question. He denied having entered into any agreement of partnership as alleged by the respondents. He said that the order referred to was not in existence in original form nor available. . He came to his awareness as to the said order just 8/9 years before the institution of the suit.

3. The respondents controverted the averments in the plaint by maintaining that the suit as brought was time‑barred, not maintainable, incorrectly valued for the purpose of court‑fee and jurisdiction. As to their position they paid that they had been rightly allotted half of the share of the land in question. Since the petitioner was not capable of bringing the entire property under the cultivation, he entered into a partnership through a deed whereunder the respondents were to bring under cultivation the whole of the property to which effect an application was submitted on behalf of the petitioner to the authorities concerned. The respondents paid the remaining instalments due to the Government. The petitioner in fact was backing out of the partnership agreement.

4. The learned Civil Judge, after the trial came to the conclusion that the Province of the Punjab was not a necessary party. The petitioner had no cause of action. The order dated 9‑11‑1966 passed by the learned Deputy Land Commissioner did exist. The order of the Land Commissioner dated 28‑1‑1973 showed that, that order with some other documents was misplaced. There were other documents to show the very existence of the order. Simply missing of the order dated 9‑11‑1966 from the record did not entitle the petitioner to plead that the said order did not exist. The petitioner had failed to prove that the order dated 9‑11‑1966 was illegal and against the facts. The respondents were successful in proving that the order dated 9‑11‑1966 was correctly passed, the land was allotted to the respondents with the free consent of the petitioner. They were put in possession, the suit was rightly valued for the purpose of court‑fee and jurisdiction. The petitioner was estopped by his conduct from challenging the order dated 9‑11‑1966 since he had himself consented that way whereunder the respondents gained half of the land in question. It was not proved that the suit was not maintainable. The petitioner had become aware of the fraud played by the respondents 10/11 years ago. The suit was time‑barred as the period for filing the same to seek the declaration was six years. The petitioner's own statement was there that he came to his awareness as to the fact 8/9 years, before the institution of the suit.

5. The petitioner filed an appeal from the judgment of the learned Civil Judge dismissing his suit which appeal came to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang. The learned Additional District Judge undertook like the learned Civil Judge an analysis of the evidence and negative the case set up by the petitioner while relying upon EXh.D.l dated 28‑1‑1973 a copy of the order passed by the Land Commissioner Sargodha on appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Deputy Land Commissioner dated 9‑11‑1966 from which it was inferred that the petitioner could not maintain that the order dated 9‑11‑1966 was not passed, Exh. D.2 copy of order dated 29‑11‑1966 passed by the Assistant Land Commissioner, Exh.D.3 copy of Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 1970 to Rabi 1974. Exh. D.4, a copy of application Exh.D.5 a copy of the statement made by the petitioner, Exh. D.6 a copy of the statements made by the respondents, Exh. D.7 attestation by the Lambardar, Exh.D.8 receipts of the payment of instalments by the respondents and Exh.D.9 a copy of the Khasra Girdawari. The learned Additional District Judge further opined that the petitioner was fully aware of the order, dated 9‑11‑1966, since he had challenged the same by filing an appeal before the Land Commissioner and that the orders, dated 9‑11‑1966 and 28‑1‑1973 were not challenged within the period of one year under Article 14 of the Limitation Act, the suit of the petitioner was time‑barred and even if the period of six years was contemplated (under Article 120 of the Limitation Act), the suit was time‑barred as the petitioner had acquired knowledge in respect of the orders dated 9‑11‑1966, 8/9 years before the institution of the suit.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to l point out anything worth noting as to the finding of the fact concurrently arrived at by both the Courts below about the share of half of the land allotted to the respondents with the consent of the petitioner, therefore, no further analysis of the evidence can be taken within the scope of section 115, C.P.C. The concurrent finding of both the Courts below appears to be justified on the record which leans favourably towards the respondents. It has been rightly observed by both the Courts below that the suit as brought is time‑barred. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not submitted or cited anything to show that within the circumstances of the cause the suit can be treated as within time. This civil revision, therefore, is dismissed in limine being without any substance.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.