' On 16-4-1988 the respondent No.1 as plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a shop of 8 Sarsai detailed on the face of the plaint. It wasclaimed that he was owner in possession of the suit property wherefrom he was forcibly evicted by the defendant No.1 now appellant some 7/8 years back and that his efforts to regain the possession through Punchiyat remained unsuccessful.
2. Defendants however, controverted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that they purchased the land under the shop in the year 1953 and after constructing the shop were in possession since then though at present one of the two shops were rented out to defendant No.2.
3. From the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff is lawful owner of the disputed property? OPP.
(2) Whether the defendant is in unauthorized possession of the disputed property ? OPP.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is. Entitled to the possession of the disputed property? OPP.
(4) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? OPP.
(5) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his conduct? OPP.
(6) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? OPP.
(7) Whether the description of the suit-land is incomplete and incorrect, if so, to what effect? OPP.
(8) Whether the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction is incorrect. If so, what is the correct valuation of the suit for both purposes? OPP.
(9) Whether the suit is within time? OPP.
(10) Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs? OPP.
(11) Relief.
4. Both the defendants Nos.1 and 2 appeared as witnesses and also examined as D.W.3. They relied upon Mutation No.337 Exh.D.1 and Mutation No.III Exh.D.2. After recording the evidence and considering the documentary evidence produced by the parties the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on 24-10-1994. Earlier it was observed that the plaintiff had failed to identify the suit property; that report of the Naib Teshildar/local commissioner supported the defence that thf defendants were in possession of the suit property for some 30/35 ve -s and that the introduction of the plaintiff in the Revenue Record by way of correction entry was dubious.
5. Additional District Judge, Nankana .However, accepted the appeal by way of the impugned judgment dated 5-12-2000 mainly on the ground that the father of the defendant namely Ali Ahmed purchased the land form Khasra Nos.384/182 in respect of which mutation was attested on 11-11-1953 while, in the view of the learned First Appellate Court, Din Muhammad plaintiff was shown as owner in the Revenue Record whose case was supported by Exhs.P.l, P.2 and P.3. Therefore, finding that he was entitled to get the possession of the same the findings of the trial Court were reversed. Hence this civil revision under section 115, C.P.C.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I will readily agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgment betrays lack of proper application of mind. Even a glance at the contents of the plaint indicates that the plaintiff had no case at all. Right from the filing of the suit the plaintiff attempted to get benefit of some revenue entries created by way of a dubious correction introduced in the Revenue Record. In the plaint the petitioner stated that some 7/8 years before the filing of the suit he was dispossessed by defendant No.1 and that during all this period his efforts to regain the possession could not be successful. In his statement as witness dated 8-1-1989 he claimed to have purchased the suit-land under shops some 20 years back and that he was dispossessed therefrom some 10/12 years. He admits to be engaged in sale and purchase of property. Also agrees that in 1976 a dispute with regard to property was taken to an arbitrator. However, he is not sure about the decision of the arbitrator. Also he is not aware of the value of the suit property.
7. It appears that the learned Court of appeal failed to appreciate the report of the local commissioner who happened to be Naib Tehsildar of the area. In that report the revenue officer stated that defendants were in possession of the suit property bearing Khasra No.1174/2 since 30/35 years. Also that Khasra Nos.1174/1 and 1174/2 were one number but subsequently the plaintiff in collusion with the revenue staff got sanctioned a supplementary Mutation No.73 and in this way the ownership of the suit property was changed without the knowledge of the defendants. He stated that correction introduced in the Revenue Record was done without seeking permission from the Competent Authority.
8. The pleadings of the parties, their evidence both oral as well as documentary lead one to irresistible conclusion that the plaintiff was claiming the ownership of the suit property merely in view of the aforesaid change in the record. The shop in question was never built byhim nor his claim of having been dispossessed from that shop some 7/8 years before filing of the suit inspired any confidence. The tenant in the shop namely defendant No.2 appeared as witness and supported the defence taken by defendant No.1 Also he, deposed that he was tenant under defendant No.1 for the last 15 years and was paying rent to his owner defendant No.l. Another witness of the area also supports the defence taken in the written statement, while sole statement of the plaintiff as his own witness is not at all worthy of any credit. Not only that he deliberately remained vague and uncertain in his plaint with regard to the exact location of the property but also his claim of having constructed the shops and thereafter having been dispossessed cannot be accepted as correct. All the more so when according to the local commissioner/Naib Tehsildar the amendment in the Revenue Record on the basis of which he claimed the ownership of the property in question was doubtful.
9. Learned trial Court appears to have appreciated the pleadings and the evidence produced by the parties in its correct perspective while the learned Court of first appeal reversed that judgment and decree in a slip shod and cursory manner. The impugned order of first Court of appeal shall therefore, be reversed and the order of the trial Court shall be restored whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
10. Petitioner allowed.