' This revision petition is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned two Courts whereby suit for possession filed by the petitioners against the respondent, has been dismissed.
2. The case of the petitioners was that he was a transferee of Property No,SW-104-R-36, known as 36 Hota Singh Road, Santnagar, Lahore. One half of which was transferred to the petitioner's predecessor and one Mushtaq Ahmed, while the other held was transferred to Haji Muhammad Wali Khan, jointly with Mehboob Ali Khan by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities. Wali Muhammad Khan, surrendered a portion of his property in favour of one Mehboob Ali Khan and thereafter, (Haji Muhammad Wali Khan) was left with an area measuring 14 Marlas 200.54 sq. Ft.
Out of which 9 Marlas was transferred by him in favour of Naseer Ahmed while 5 Marlas and 135.77 sq. Ft. Was transferred by him in favour of Mst. Aysha, who sold it to Muhammad Riaz, the respondent herein.
3. The case of the petitioners was that the respondent had encroached an area measuring 8' x 4- 1/2' of the plaintiff's Court yard by raising a wall which had closed the main entrance of the plaintiff No,2. Accordingly, a mandatory injunction was claimed against the respondent for removing the encroachment and possession of the disputed area was also claimed. The suit was contested by the respondent. A number of preliminary objections were taken. The averments of the plaint were denied. It was also asserted that in the previous suit filed by the petitioners, their stance in para. 2 of the plaint was that the wall was raised by Muhammad Wali Khan thereby closing the common entrance. However, the earlier suit was withdrawn and the present suit was filed.
4. Necessary issues were framed and the suit was tried. It may also be noted that the learned trial Court had also appointed a Local Commission. The suit of the petitioners was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26-11-1987. They filed an appeal. The learned first Appellate Court noted the depositions of Habib Ahmad, petitioner, who appeared as P.W.3, that the wall was constructed by the Hindus which is a partition wall and came to the conclusion that the respondent had not made any encroachment in the portion of the petitioners. The report of the Local Commissioner, appointed by the learned trial Court was also relied upon, according to which the respondent had not made any encroachment and had constructed a wall and latrine towards his own portion. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed on 13-9-1988.
5. On 23-10-2001, it was agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that the total area of the house was (sic) Kanals and parties were entitled to one half each in equal share. The entitlement of the petitioners in the property was, thus, 1 Kanal. I accordingly, directed the S.D.O. Building Department, of this Court to inspect the site and to report the exact area of the said house in respective possession of the parties. The Local Commissioner accordingly, submitted his report after spot measurement, according to which the petitioners are in possession of a total area measuring 4915 sq. Ft. While Muhammad Riaz, respondent, is in possession of an area measuring 1216 sq.Ft. According to the report of the Local Commissioner, the petitioners are in possession of an area of more than 1 Kanal Entitlement of the respondent, as per the averments of para.4 of the plaint was 1260-77 sq. Ft. While he is in possession of 1216 sq. Ft. Although the Local Commissioner has also reported that the respondent had constructed the bath room on the land of Habib Ahmad-petitioner No,1 yet the fact remains that the petitioners are in possession of more area than their entitlement in the house while the respondent is in possession of less area than his entitlement. I, therefore, see no ground to interfere in the concurrent findings of the learned two Courts. This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Revision .