' This judgment proposes to decide two petitions (Civil Revision No.1186 of 2003 and Writ Petition No.8507 of 2003) arising out of consolidated judgments/decrees, dated 20-5-2002 and 10-5-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar, respectively, involving similar questions of law and facts, between the same parties.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that the petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming to be owners in possession of 2 Kanals of land, detailed in their plaint, with the averments that the respondents have no right, title or interest in the property in their possession and thus, they have no right to interfere therewith.
3. The respondents being defendants in the suit, denied assertions of the petitioners, pleaded that the petitioners have illegally and forcibly occupied their property, by filing their written statement wherein they raised certain preliminary objections, dubbing the suit as a counter blast to the one filed by the respondents for possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.
4. Muhammad Ramzan etc. (respondents) filed a separate suit for recovery of possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, averring that land measuring 2 Kanals detailed in their plaint, was in their peaceful possession but the petitioners about 2-3/4 months earlier to the filing of the suit, forcibly and illegally deprived them of their possession and unauthorizedly occupied it. They asserted that the property in dispute is situated within Abadi Deh of Hassan Shah Mauza, Sukha Shah Dagger, Teshil Darya Khan, District Bhakkar, and is in their possession since long. The respondents also claimed that the land, possession of which is sought to be revived was being used by them as their courtyard where they had been tethering their cattle, sheep and goats.
5. The petitioners being defendants in this suit, denied allegation of forcible dispossession of the respondents by filing their written statement wherein they raised preliminary objections regarding lick of cause of action, approaching the Court with unclean hands. Their stance in the written statement was that the disputed property was owned by Syed Ghulam Murtaza Bhatti from whom they purchased it through an agreement to sell and house of the respondents is situated besides the disputed lands. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated the framing of issues and the learned trial Judge after consolidation of both the suits, framed consolidated issues. The parties led their respective evidence and at the conclusion of the trial, learned trial Judge who was seized of the matter, vide his judgment and decree, dated 20-5-2002 dismissed the suit of the petitioners for permanent injunction whereas decreed the suit of the respondents for possession, under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.
6. The petitioners aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court, dated 20-5-2002 filed two separate appeals and a revision petition, challenging decrees in both the suits but remained unsuccessful as their both the appeal and the revision petition were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment and decree, dated 10-5-2003. The petitioner, thereafter filed instant revision petition against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below, dismissing their suits for permanent injunction whereas they challenged concurrent judgments and decrees passed in the suit of the respondents under section 9 of the Act' ibid through Writ Petition No.8507 of 2003 and after service of the respondents, who are represented through their counsel, have now been fixed for final determination.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to showings of the respondents themselves, they had no construction over the land in question and only claimed that they had been tethering their cattle over there. According to him, such a possession which is temporary in nature does not give them a right to the possession to file a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act as held in the cases of Devi Ditta Ram and others v. Waryam (AIR 1929 Lahore 526) and Jalal Din and others v. The Crown (PLD 1953 Lahore 34). He further contends that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question under an agreement to sell, dated 16-9-1999 and thus, have a lawful right to remain in possession but the respondents have proved no title to the land through any document. It has further been submitted that the respondents are taking advantage of their house which is adjacent to the property in dispute, otherwise they were not in possession of it.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents denied assertions of the petitioners, supported the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below and urged that neither learned counsel for the petitioners has asserted any misreading or non-reading of evidence on the file nor the same is proved, in absence of which, no interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court is permissible. He further contends that the petitioners in the month of October, 1999 forcibly occupied the compound of the respondents where they had been tethering their cattle by raising constructions and on their interference, proceedings under sections 107 and 151, Cr.P.C. Were initiated against the parties which is a clear proof that the petitioners took a forcible possession of the land in dispute. In has also been argued that the petitioners claim some agreement to sell, dated 16-9-1999 under which they took the forcible possession but the executor of this document had no right, title or interest in the property because this is located within Abadi Deh and had never been in possession of the person executing agreement to sell, above referred.
9. I have anxiously considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record appended herewith. Both the parties have produced their witnesses who have supported the respective stance of their parties but oral stance of P.Ws appearing on behalf of the respondents is more consistent and natural. Statements of P.Ws get support from the documentary evidence produced by the respondents in form of Exh.P.1 (site-plan) which shows that the property in dispute is part of Khasra No.97/6 Exh.P.2 and Exh.P.3. Are copies of complaint in the proceedings under sections 107 and 151, Cr.P.C. Against the parties. Ex. P.4 to Exh.P.10 are copies of the proceedings conducted by a local Commissioner namely Ch. Manzoor Ahmad, Advocate, appointed by the Court, to inspect the site in question and submitted his report. Exh.P.11 and Exh.P12 are copies of Jamabandi which confirms that the property in dispute in part of Abadi Deh and is occupied by the residents of the locality. These documents exclusively proved that the respondents were in possession of the land in question about three months earlier to the institution of their suits when on forcible taking over the possession of the land by the petitioners under their asserted agreement to sell, dated 16-9-1999 (Ex.P.1). Respondents were deprived of their occupation/possession and both the parties were proceeded against under sections 107 and 151, Cr .P.0 .
10. The petitioners had also produced two reports of the local Commission Exh.D.2 and Exh.D.3 which also confirm that in the month of October 1999, the petitioners raised constructions over the land in question. The petitioners themselves claimed transfer of land in question through agreement to sell executed by Syed Ghulam Murtaza vide agreement, dated 16-9-1999 before which they do not claim any concern with the land in question. It also goes to support the stance of the respondents that they were dispossessed in October, 1999 by raising constructions, as is evident from documentary evidence produced by both the parties. Land subject of suit is, uniably situated in front of respondents house and was being used by them as their compound where they had been tethering their cattle. Such possession cannot be said to be of temporary nature, as asserted by the petitions thus the precedent case, referred by them, has no application to the case in hand.
11. The petitioners had no right to take the law in their own hands and to take forcible possession under some agreement, above referred, executed by an unconcerned person who was not shown to be in possession of the land in dispute. They, if at all, are really interested in possession of the land, they must seek their remedy before the Court of competent jurisdiction, on the basis of their claimed agreement. No exemptions can be taken to the concurrent findings of facts returned by the two Courts below, which are in consonance with the evidence on the file. Suit by the respondents for possession was filed on 6-1-2000 whereas the petitioners filed suit for permanent injunction on 12-1-2000 which appears to be in counterblast to the suit filed by the respondents.
The respondents being in possession of Shamlat Deh, will be considered to be the owners till the time of partition of the Shamlat Deh and no one else, including other co-owners of the village, had any right to dispossess the respondents, by show of force. The petitioners have no claim in share in Shamlat Deh land, as their basis in the suit is only an agreement to sell which in itself does not create any right, title or interest, in the property, thus, their suit for permanent injunction could not have been decreed to protect their illegal and forcible possession. Thus, both the Courts below have correctly refused issuance of permanent injunction in favour of the petitioners. Likewise dispossession of the respondents, as claimed by them in their suit, is proved and in this manner, their suitwas rightly decreed by the learned trial Judge and was correctly affirmed by the revisional Court.
12. For what has been discussed above, both the petitions (C.R No.1186 of 2003 and Writ Petition No. 8507 of 2003), as noted above, make out no case for interference by this Court either in revisional or in Constitutional jurisdiction. Both the Courts below have committed no illegality or irregularity in absence of which, no interference can be made by this Court in either of the jurisdiction vested in it.
Both the petitions above referred, have no merit in those and thus are dismissed with no order to costs.