' The petitioners through the present revision petition have assailed the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below by virtue of which the suit for declaration and permanent injunction brought by the predecessor of the present respondents was decreed in their favour by the learned -trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29-11-2001 and the appeal filed by the present petitioners was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 18-7-2002.
2. The facts in brief are that Muhammad Alam, the predecessor-ininterest of the present respondents brought a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with the averments that the land measuring 14 Kanals and 3 Marlas as detailed in para. No.1 of the plaint belonged to him and in consequence of a decree passed in a suit for possession titled Muhammad Alam v. Allah Rakhi, the plaintiff and others were put into possession of the property and he became owner of the property whereas the respondent Allah Rakhi was held entitled to be owner of 3 Kanals and 2 Marlas as I/4th share it was further stated that for the purpose of construction of a road the Highway Department through a mutation acquired the land measuring 2 Kanals and 3 Marlas on 22-8-1971, the compensation of which was received by respondent No.1 and as a result of above referred acquisition she remained owner only to the extent of 19 Marlas of land but wrongly and collusively the share of the plaintiff had been reduced to- the extent of 1/4th of his land also. With this background the plaintiff had challenged the above referred Mutation No.267, dated 22-8-1971 by way of suit for declaration claiming the relief that the defendant be restrained from alienating this property in any manner. The defendants/petitioners contested this suit with the averments that in consequence of the decree referred to by the plaintiff in his plaint, respondent No.1 was held entitled to 1/4th share to the property and when the property in question was acquired by the Highway Department the property of the petitioner/defendant No.1 was acquired to the extent of 1/4th of her share and compensation was paid to her accordingly it was further alleged that the relief sought is within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities. While defendants Nos.3 to 9 contested the matter that they had purchased the property as bona fide purchasers. The learned trial Court framed the necessary issues recorded the evidence of the parties and after hearing the parties proceeded to decree the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29-11-2001. The present petitioners being aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 18-7-2002 hence the present revision petition by the petitioners to call in question the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with their assistance.
' There is no cavil with the proposition that a decree for possession had been passed in an earlier suit titled Muhammad Alam v. Allah Rakhi as a result of which the plaintiff, as per contents of para.No.2 of the plaint, admitted defendant No.1 to be the owner of 1/4th share of the land in dispute. The parties are at variance with regard to the question when the property was acquired by Highways Department for the purpose of construction of road where the land measuring 2 Kanals and 3 Marlas was acquired by the above referred department from the land of the petitioner or whether the total land acquired by the Highways through the above referred mutation was 1/4th belonging to the petitioner and similarly 1/4th out of the land belonging to the predecessor- ininterest of the respondents. Mutation No.267, dated 22-8-1971 had been made available as Exh.D.2, which clearly to the effect that 1/4th land was acquired from the entire land. As the predecessorin-interest of the respondents had approached the Court, therefore, it was his duty to frame that the land of the present petitioner had been acquired by the Highways Department and she had received the compensation of the acquired land and she has left with no land. There is no documentary evidence to prove this factum.
4. In view of the above proposition and analysis of the judgments of both the Courts below, it is clear that the judgments are suffering from illegality and material irregularity, as these warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. For what has been said above, the instant revision petition is allowed and the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside. Resultantly, the suit brought by the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.