' Muhammad Ayub, respondent No.1, who undisputedly is the son of the petitioner had brought a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction that he was owner-in-possession of the suit property and the petitioner who was arrayed as defendant No.1 in the suit should be restrained from interfering in his possession. The suit was instituted on 15-9-1993 in which Deputy Director Housing and Physical Planning and Secretary of the said Department were also impleaded as defendants. By filing written statements, the suit was contested and assertion of the respondent/plaintiff was controverted. The trial Court framed necessary issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties whereafter evidence led by them was recorded by it. The suit was eventually decreed vide judgment dated 10-9-1997. Appeal preferred thereagainst by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad on 6-11-1999. This is revision petition thereagainst.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Courts below have acted illegally in the matter inasmuch as the evidence on the record has totally been ignored from consideration and rather unilateral assertion of the respondent/plaintiff has been given preference over the documentary evidence of unimpeachable character. It is, thus, contended that finding so recorded and judgment rendered thou ,h concurrently are liable to be set aside bet ig contrary to the evidence on the record an,.' the law. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has failed to enter appearance since morning despite the fact that his name appears in the cause list and the case has been called out repeatedly. The petition, thus, has been heard ex parte..
3. Issues Nos.3 and 4 were of importance in the context of the controversy which read like this:-- "3. Whether plaintiff is in possession of disputed property for the last 30/32 years? OPP
4. Whether allotment and sale-deed in favour of defendant No.1 is illegal and void? OPP"
' It may be appreciated that in the written statement filed by the petitioner, it was pleaded by him that the respondent/ plaintiff being his son was residing in the house with him and that he (respondent/ plaintiff) had no independent right or entitlement. It was asserted by him that the allotment of the suit property was in his name who had paid the price and allotment order dated 24-2-1967 was issued to him. He had given out the family background and the reasons which prompted respondent No.1 to file the suit. According to the petitioner/defendant the suit was frivolous and lacked the cause of action. The official defendants had filed their separate written statement pleading that the suit plot had been allotted to the petitioner by the Department. The respondent/plaintiff produced Syed Munawar Hussain Shah, P.W./1, Allah Ditta, P.W.2 and himself appeared as P.W.3. The sum and substance of his evidence was that he was in possession of the suit property along with the petitioner and other family members including his step-brothers. Abdul Ghani petitioner appeared himself as D.W.1, who produced the allotment order of the year 1967, Exh.D.1, a letter from Secretary District Housing Committee, Faisalabad dated 27-6-1990 Exh.D.2, payment challan Exh. D.3 and property tax payment receipts Exhs.D.4 to D.S. From all these documents, the ownership of the property in the name of Abdul Ghani, the petitioner, is conspicuously evident. The learned trial Court, however, while deciding the matter in particular Issues Nos. 3 and 4 was impressed by the fact that the respondent/plaintiff was residing with the petitioner (his father) from the, very beginning and that the plaintiff had an independent status and that in view of the survey and possession of the respondent/plaintiff, he was entitled to a portion of the house to be allotted to him The learned Additional District Judge also proceeded to affirm the view taken by the learned trial Court noting that the possession of the respondent/ plaintiff over the disputed portion of the property was admitted where his seven children had taken birth. Suffice it to observe that the considerations which prevailed with the two Courts below in decreeing the suit of respondent/ plaintiff were wholly immaterial and irrelevant inasmuch as it was nobody's case that he was not residing there. But mere residence of the respondent /plaintiff with the petitioner, his father along with other members of the family had not armed or vested him with an independent right to claim allotment or right in the property during the life time of his father i.e. The petitioner. As mentioned above, the allotment existed in the name of the petitioner who had paid the price and his ownership was borne out from the official record as well, including the clear stance of the official respondents. In such view of the matter, the two Courts below were clearly misdirected in their approach to the matter in granting decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The judgments being contrary to the evidence on the record and the law are not sustainable.
' In view of the above, this revision petition is accepted, setting aside the judgments of the two Courts below, with no order as to costs.