Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No.93-D of 1983/BWP, decided on 12th October, 1985.

---S.115--Revision--Suit for declaration as to entitlement /ownership of land in dispute--Suit of petitioners dismissed by Courts below after carefully examining record, and inferences derived or findings arrived at by them not suffering from any legal defect--Petitioners unable to point out any non-reading or misreading of record- Interference declined by High Court in revisional jurisdiction.

Sh.Hakim Ali for Petitioners.

Qaiser Mahmood Shafi for Respondents.

The petitioners have challenged judgment and decree of Civil Judge dated 17-4-1978 dismissing their suit and that of Additional District Judge Rahimyar Khan, upholding the same in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 23-2-1983.

2. The relevant facts are that Abdul Baqi, Abdul Haq and their brother Abdul Razzaq (now being represented by his successors-in- interest, petitioners No.3 to 10) filed on 20-4-1972 a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of Khata No.85/84 to the extent of 1764/12096 shares in the land measuring 420 Kanals 16 Marlas situate in village Khanpur, with consequential relief to direct corresponding corrections in the Revenue papers. Besides this, a prohibitory injunction was also sought against the defendants/ respondents restraining them from interfering in their ownership and possession of the land in question. The plaintiffs /petitioners averred that Ali Muhammad, their predecessor in interest was owner to the extent of 42/288 share in Khata No.97/148 as per entry in Jamabandi for the year 1933-34 and that they were obliged to file the suit as during the consolidation operation in the village defendants /respondents started saying that the plaintiffs/petitioners had no concern with the suit land that they were owners of the same. The suit was resisted on the ground that Ali Muhammad (predecessor- in-interest of petitioners) had sold away his share in the land to Khan son of Pathan) predecessor-in-interest of respondents) in 1927-28. It was also pleaded that at the time of partition of Khata in the year 1958 it was found that aforesaid Ali Muhammad had sold away his entire holding and that the land which was with him was evacuee property. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed and tried:----

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the land to the extent of 1764/12096 shares in holding No.85/84 as per record of rights in the year 1958-60

(2) Relief.

Learned trial Court on consideration of material on record dismissed the suit. Appeal filed by the petitioners also failed before Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, hence this revision.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at limine stage and also gone through the impugned judgments of the Courts below and perused the record appended with the memo of revision. Learned Courts below in their detailed judgments considered both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and observed that in Khatooni No.336 said Ali. Muhammad was shown to have sold his land in rectangle Nos.411/15 and 411/16 to Khan (predecessor-in-interest of respondents) though it was shrouded in mystry as to what was the basis for recording this entry, but this entry remained unchallenged for over 30 years till the instant suit was filed in the year 1972. Having perused the documents relied upon by the parties learned Courts below held that from the year 1927-28 to 1963-64 either Khan (predecessor-in-interest of respondents) or t the respondents themselves, namely, Pir Bakhsh and Waryam have been shown as vendees of rectangle Nos.411/15 and 411/16 in equal shares. It was also noticed that Abdul Baqi, one of the petitioners, deposed that rectangle Nos.411/10 and 411/11 were in their possession and that rectangle Nos.411/15 and 411/16 were neither owned nor possessed by them. On the other hand, the respondents have all along been recorded as owners of rectangle Nos.411/15 and 411/16. In face of these findings the petitioners were non-suited by the lower Courts.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has failed to point out any non-reading or misreading of record, rather I find-that the Courts below have carefully examined the record and the inferences derived by them can hardly be termed to be against the record. Petitioners' counsel, however, stressed on the point that learned Additional District Judge has held that the respondents were in adverse possession of the land in dispute which finding was not justified because neither the respondents had raised any such objection nor an issue was framed in this regard. That may be so but even if this finding is ignored, the result of the case would remain undisturbed in view of finding on issue No.1 within as indicated above, does not suffer from legal defect. Consequently, I find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.

M.Y.H./A-161/L Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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