' This revision petition filed under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4-10-1989 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree dated 23-4-1988 of the learned trial Court by which suit seeking possession of the suit-land instituted by the respondents was decreed against the petitioner.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant revision petition are that the plaintiffs (hereinafter called the respondents) instituted a suit for possession of the suit-land measuring 10 Marlas (detailed in the plaint) against the defendant (hereinafter called the petitioner). It is alleged in the plaint that the petitioner was owner in possession of three Marlas of the land situated on the northern (sic) institution of the suit he had encroached upon the suit-land. The suit was vehemently contested and the learned trial Court keeping in view the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD
(4) Whether the suit has been incorrectly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. If so, to what effects? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the property ? OPP
(7) Relief.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective assertions. After 'going through the same, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 23-4-1988. An appeal preferred against the same by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari vide his judgment and decree dated 4-10-1989. Hence the instant revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the land in dispute was a part of a joint Khata and petitioner being also an owner in the same Khata, cannot be dispossessed unless and until the Khata is partitioned. Adds that the suit was patently not maintainable but this aspect of the matter was not properly appreciated by the learned Courts below, thus case of the petitioner was badly prejudiced.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents vehemently supports the impugned judgments and decrees by submitting that the same had been passed strictly in accordance with law and facts.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. On a Court question learned counsel for the petitioner states that suit-land was taken into possession b, the petitioner from the respondents on the basis of an oral agreement of sale.
Meaning thereby petitioner admits the ownership of the respondents. There is no evidence available on the respondents had ever agreed to sell the suit-land to the petitioner.
' Both the learned Courts below have right held that such a plea not taken in the pleadings, was surely an afterthought. The ownership of the suit-land of the respondents is also evident from Exh.P.1 copy of Mutation No.406 and Exh.P.2 copy of Jamabandi for the year 1982-83. The witnesses produced by the respondents also affirmed this position. Whereas no documentary evidence was brought on the record by the petitioner. As far as land measuring three Marlas in possession of the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute at all with regard thereto. However, the dispute is with regard to 10 Marlas of the land (suit-land) which was admittedly owned by the respondents but the possession thereof had been claimed by the petitioner on the basis of some contract of sale, but, as noticed, this plea was not established by him (petitioner) through cogent evidence.
8. The plea of the petitioner with regard to non-maintainability of the instant suit cannot be successfully advanced in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Respondents, undoubtedly being the owners of the suit-land are entitled to the possession of the same particularly when no plea has been put forth with regard to the identification of the same and the other owners in joint Khata do not have any dispute with regard to this very piece of land i.e. Suit- land.
9. Both the learned Courts below after scanning the entire material available on the file have concurrently decided the controversial matter against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. I am convinced that the impugned judgments and decrees have been passed on a due appreciation of law and facts, which call for no interference by this Court in exercise of jurisidiction under section 115,C.P.C.
10.For what has been stated above instant petition fails and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.