' On 14-2-1984 the respondents filed a suit against the petitioners. In the plaint it was stated that Muhammad Bakhsh, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/ respondents was an owner in the Shamlat of village Hattar. The Shamlat was partitioned on 24-6-1931 and land measuring 2 Kanals, 3 Marlas comprising Khasra No.998/500/11 fell to his share. Muhammad Ramzan, the predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners also became an owner by purchase in the said Khasra number. It was complained that the said Muhammad Ramzan deceased had constructed three rooms on 7 Marlas land of the plaintiffs/respondents. A suit was filed. A Local Commissioner was appointed who traced out the said Khasra number but the corresponding Tatimas were not found in the Revenue Records meaning thereby that the plaintiff was not found entitled to specific possession.
He withdrew the suit and filed the present suit accordingly for separate possession by partition.
Now the said Muhammad Ramzan filed an evasive written statement objecting that he had purchased the land in the year 1940 and had constructed his house. The material contents of the plaint were not denied in particular the report in the former suit was not only admitted her relied upon in the said written statement. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide judgment and decree dated 25-9-1995 the learned trial Cburt dismissed the suit. The first appeal of the plaintiffs/respondents was heard by a learned A.D.J., Jhelum, who passed a preliminary decree and sent back the case to the learned trial Court for passing of a final decree. This was done vide judgment and decree dated 7-6-1998.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned A.D.J. Has failed to read the evidence on record and further has passed the preliminary decree to the detriment of the petitioners who are bona fide purchaser. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the preliminary decree is in accordance with the evidence on record.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. As noted by me above while reproducing the pleadings of the parties, both of them have placed reliance on a report that was filed in the earlier suit of the plaintiff/respondents. This document is available on record as Exh.P.1. This report was got proved through its author Tehsildar P.W.1. According to this report and of course, according to the plaintiff/respondents their share comes to 2 Kanals, 3 Marlas. The deceased petitioner Muhammad Ramzan stated that his share comes to 7 Kanals, 17 Marlas vide Mutation No.822 attested on 16-11- 1940. It was determined on the spot that the area purchased by the petitioner's and the area owned by the plaintiff/respondents is so owned by them and is available at the spot. Thus the preliminary decree is fully supported by the said undisputed document. Learned counsel for the petitioners then states that the plaintiff/respondents, in fact, want to take over the area belonging to the petitioners. The apprehension is baseless. The preliminary decree by all means is inter se the parties and has been passed with reference to the said report Exh.P.1 which is otherwise supported by the available Revenue Record. It is but obvious that the learned trial Court is to proceed on the basis that 7 Kanals, 17 Marlas belonging to the defendants/petitioners and 2 Kanals, 3 Marlas belonging to the plaintiff/respondents is to be separated, adjusted and delivered upto both the parties for which purpose the learned A.D.J. Has directed the learned trial Court to conduct the proceedings for the final decree. With these observations the civil revision is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
4. A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the learned trial Court.