On 29-6-1988 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents. In the plaint it was stated that the land measuring 12 Marlas described in plaint is owned by 'them having devolved upon them by way of inheritance from Noor Alam; that Muhammad Bashir predecessor-in-interest of the respondents got himself recorded in possession when he was not in possession. After his death, two years ago the petitioners took possession of the land. With these averments the possession of the suit-land was sought. In their written statement the petitioners on the one hand proceeded to state that the predecessor-in--interest of the respondents lost connection with the suit-land 40/42 years ago and because of old possession, the possession is open and hostile. In the same written statement it was stated that respondents are not owners whereas ownership of the petitioners stands proved from records and then it was stated that possession of the petitioners is valid and legal. Be that as it may, issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11-12-1990. A first appeal filed by the respondents was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal, who allowed the same and decreed their suit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the possession of the petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest stands recorded in the column of possession of Revenue Record eversince 1952-53 and respondents also had failed to prove that they were dispossessed two years before the institution of the suit, plea of adverse possession stood proved and as such the learned Additional District Judge acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction while decreeing the suit of the respondents. No one has turned up for the respondents.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records appended with this civil revision, with the assistance, of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. Copies of the Revenue Records produced by both the parties are available. Exh. D-1 is Jamabandi for the year 1939-40. In this document Muhammad Shah is recorded as occupancy tenant while possession is that of Noor Alam with out payment of rent " {{URDU TEXT}}". Exh.D-2 is Jamabandi for the year 1944-45 where Noor Alam is recorded in possession as occupancy tenant. Exh.D-3 is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1952-53. In this document the respondents are recorded as permanent tenant while Muhammad Bashir (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) is recorded non-occupancy tenant without payment of rent "{{URDU TEXT}}". This entry continues in Exh.D-4. for 1956-57. In Exh.D-5 upon confirment of proprietary rights in 1960-61 the respondents were recorded as owners while said Muhammad Bashir as non-occupancy tenant without payment of rent " {{URDU TEXT}}". Same entry is in Exh.D-6 for 1964-65. Exh/D-7 for 1968-69, Exh.D-8 for 1972-73, Exh. D-9 for 1976-77 and Exh.D-10 for 1980-81. Now learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the case of Sohara and others v. Muhammad Nawaz and others (1996 SCM R 1719) decided by two Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court wherein somewhat similar circumstances the plea of adverse possession taken by the defendant was upheld.
5. In all humility I may state, that in the first instance some of the entries in the said case were 064 and their lordships observed that the forcible dispossession in the year 1939 stood proved. In the second, instance the judgment delivered by a Bench comprising of three Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Shad Muhammad v. Khan Poor (PLD 1986 SC 91) affirmed by a Bench comprising of three Honourable Judges in the case of Said Amir and others v. Ashraf Khan and others (PLD 1986 SC 113) was not before their lordships while deciding the said case of "Sohara and others". Now in the said case of "Shad Muhammad" a rule was laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court for interpretation of entries in various columns of a Jamabandi. It was observed that whereas presumption of correctness is attached to the column of ownership and column of possession, no presumption is attached to the column of "Lagan". In the said case the defendant was entered as non-occupancy tenant, in the column of possession while the entries in the column of "Lagan" were "mortgagee without payment of rent". It was held that unless the contents of said column of "Lagan" are independently proved, the entry in the column of possession shall take precedence. This rule was affirmed in the said latter case "Said Amir and others". Now I have already referred to the respective pleadings of the parties above. It is true that the dispossession of the respondents as alleged by them has not been proved on record. However, at the same time there can possibly be no dispute that the respondents had proved their title. Now the petitioners had raised what may be called a plea of adverse possession. There is no plea and there is no evidence that the petitioners had purchased the land. This being so the entries in column of "Lagan" remain unproved and entry in column of possession shall take effect. The end result would be that the petitioners shall be deemed to be tenants under the respondents and this being so mere non-payment of rent for any length of time would not convert the possession into adverse possession for the purposes of limitation.
6. For all that has been discussed above, this civil revision is found to be without any force and is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.