MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---This civil revision assails the judgment and decree dated 8.9.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Attock, whereby appeal of the respondent was accepted and his suit for possession was decreed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 15.2.2001
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession and injunction, restraining the petitioners' from alienating/changing the nature of the suit land measuring 6 marlas out of Khasra No. 2519, detailed in the plaint. Respondent pleaded that one year earlier of filing of that suit, the petitioners were licensed by him to their cattle over the land in dispute, for temporary purpose but subsequently they started asserting their ownership there over and refused to return the same, despite the demand, thus, declaration with regard of ownership and its possession was claimed through the suit in hand
3. The petitioners being defendants in the suit contested it by filing their written statement wherein, they denied assertion in the plaint and claimed the land in question as a part of their ancestral property from the times immemorial. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. The learned Civil Judge who was seized of the matter, after doing the needful, on the basis of his appraisal of evidence dismissed the suit of the respondent vide his judgment and decree dated 15.2.2001.
4. The respondent aggrieved of the decision of the Trial Court, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, where he succeeded as his appeal was accepted and his suit was decreed as prayed, with costs vide judgment and decree dated 8.9.2001. Thereafter the petitioners filed the instant revision petition, which was admitted to regular hearing and has now been placed for final determination.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners that the land subject of suit is in possession of the petitioners since times immemorial where they raised their "Havaili" and is in their possession from their forefathers. He further contended. That the respondent had no title to the property, which, if at all, stood extinguished by lapse of time because possession of the petitioner over the land has matured into title by adverse possession. He further submitted that plea of adverse possession having been taken by the petitioners earlier to the change of law, would overwhelm the ownership of the petitioners duly endorsed in the documents According to him, the land subject of dispute being located within the "Abadi Deh" will be deemed to be ownership of the person who is occupying it hence, the suit of the respondent has incorrectly been decreed by the Appellate Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent strenuously opposed the arguments of the petitioners, supported the appellate judgment and urged that the respondent has produced proof of his ownership over the land in dispute and against it the petitioners could not prove their open hostile title over this property. He further contended that the possession of the petitioners over disputed the land being permissive could never mature into. Title. He further submitted that the "Adadi Deh" is joint property of the proprietors of the village and the petitioners being not owners of agricultural land, cannot be graded as owners of the land, even of located within the Abadi.
7. I have minutely considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. The respondent being plaintiff was required to prove his title to the suit land bearing Khara No. 2519. In order to discharge this onus he produced a copy of Jamabandi for the year 1903-1904 (Ex.P.3) wherein 2 old Khasra Nos. 1146 min and 1147 were allocated new Khasra No. 1777 He also produced a Jamabandi for the year 1924-1925 wherein in lieu of Khasra No. 1777 a new Khasra number was allocated as 1897. In this Jamabandi Ghulam Hussain etc. Predecessors of the respondent are recorded as owners. He then produced Jamabandi for the year 1987-88 (Ex.P8) whereby Khasra No. 1897 was given new Khasra number as 2519. The respondent in order to connect himself with the owners recorded in the Jamabandis, produced copies of pedigree-table (Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2). These show that the respondent is the descendant in third degree descendant of Ghulam Hussain Khan.
This documentary evidence and admission of DW.1 Muhammad Akram, a witness of the petitioners that land in dispute is owned by Ghulam Hussain Khan, respondent's predecessor, proved beyond any shadow; of doubt that the land forming Khasra No. 2519 is in the ownership of the respondent.
8. The petitioners have no title to the land claimed by the respondent and their only stance is that their longstanding possession there over has matured into title by adverse possession. It is settled proposition that in order to prove adverse possession the person claiming is required to. Prove his open hostile, adverse, uninterrupted possession to the owner. The petitioners in order to prove their this claim produced Imtiaz Bibi one of the petitioner as DW-2 and Muhammad Akram as DW-1. The latter witness deposed that the land in question was given to the parents of the petitioners, as land by them was given to the tenants for residential purposes. DW.2 stated that the petitioners are living over the land in question since their ancestral. This is the entire evidence produced by the petitioners and there is not a single word in the evidence regarding their open hostile title.
Statement of DW-1 negated the stance of adverse possession of the petitioners as he claimed to be grantee of permission to the petitioners for occupying this land. This witness also admitted that forefathers of the respondent are owner of the khasra number in question (2519) to the extent of 1/2 share.
9. The respondent's evidence consisting of three witnesses, who unanimously deposed that the respondent is owner of the property and he licensed the petitioners to occupy it, for temporary tethering of their cattle and this evidence coupled with statement of DW-1, proved that the possession of the petitioners is permissive. It is settled proposition of law that permissive possession can never mature into a title, whatever length of possession may be. Above all such right has already been declared to be contrary to Injunctions of Islam. Reference in this behalf can be made to the judgment of Maqbool Ahmad Vs. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCM R 2063).
10. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land within the "Abadi Deh" will become. Ownership of the person in possession, is misconceived because this property vests in proprietors of the village who own agricultural land. It is settled law that proprietors of the village who own agricultural land, hold share in "Abadi Deh" to the proportion of their ownership of land of the village/estate. I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioners could not resist the suit of the respondent who is equipped with title of the property as discussed above on the basis of flimsy and baseless claim.
11. For what has been discussed above, I feel' no hesitation to hold that ;the findings of the first Appellate Court are absolutely in consonance with the evidence on the file and the law applicable who did not commit any illegality or irregularity amenable to revision jurisdiction of this Court. This revision petition has no merit in it and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. .