' This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revisions Nos.1498, 1499 and 1681 of 2000, as common question of law and facts are involved.
2. The petitioners filed three suits for possession on the basis of title against the respondents in respect of the land fully detailed and described in the plaint. It was claimed that the petitioners were occupancy tenants on the suit-land under section 6 of the Tenancy Act, which by operation of law converted into ownership. The original defendants in all the revision petitions occupied illegally 14-1/2 Marlas each.
3. The respondents in the above three suits filed their respective written statements. Controversy between the parties gave rise to framing of issues. The same issues were framed in verbatim in the other two suits which gave rise to the Civil Revisions Nos.1499 and 1681 of 2000. Parties produced their respective evidence. The learned trial Court decreed the suit. On respondent's appeals the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was set aside by the learned Appellate Court, which resulted into dismissal of the suit, giving rise to the present civil revisions.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents pleaded title in the written statements filed on 31-3-1987. In amended written statements, without seeking permission from the Court adverse possession was claimed, which are mutually destructive. He has placed reliance on Khuda Bakhsh and others v. Mureed and others 1999 SCM R 996; Abdul Majeed and 6 others v.
Muhammad Subhan and 2 others _1999 SCM R 1245; Mira Khan v. Ghulam Farooq and others 1988 SCM R 1765; Ghulam Qadir v. Ahmad Yar and others PLD 1990 SC 1049 and Amirzada Khan and others v. Ahmad Noor and others PLD 2003 SC 410. It was added that the petitioners could not be allowed set up a different case and produced evidence in departure to the pleadings.. Reliance can be placed on Binyameen and 3 others v. Chaudhary Hakim and another 1996 SCM R 336. It was further contended with reference to Muhammad Zaman v. Nazir Ahmed and 2 others 2003 CLC 1628 that the suit was filed within time.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents controverted the contentions raised on petitioner's behalf and forcefully supported the judgment rendered by the learned Appellate Court.
6. The contentions of the learn6d counsel for the parties have been considered with reference to the pleadings and evidence available on the record.
7. The petitioners claim possession of the suit property on the basis of title. The petitioners were recorded as occupancy tenants. Copy of Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1966-67 is Exh.D.3 and copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1983-84 (Exh.P.1). The respondents in first written statement pleaded title in his favour on the basis of exchange entered between the parties. In subsequent written statement, without seeking prior permission from the Court to amend the same, adverse possession was claimed. The plea of adverse possession and of title is mutually destructive. The respondent cannot amend written statement without permission of the Court.
Unauthorized amendment in the written statement, even if not objected to by the petitioners, are to be completely ignored. Reference may be had to Kaloo v. Muhammad Sharif Khan and others PLD 1965 AJ&K 15; Muhammad Yahya v. Rahem Ali AIR 1929 Lahore 165 and Hardial Singh and others v.
Sardarni Jaswa nt Kaur AIR 1943 Lah.
252.
8. In Mira Khan v. Ghulam Farooq and others 1988 SCM R 1765, it was held that the plea of adverse possession and plea of purchase could not stand together and clash was irreconcilable. This principle of law was followed in subsequent pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan recorded in Khuda Baldish and others v. Mureed and others 1999 SCM R 996; Abdul Majeed and 6 others v. Muhammad Subhan and 2 others 1999 SCM R 1245; Ghulam Qadir v. Ahmad Yar and others PLD 1990 SC 1049 and Amirzada Khan and others v. Ahmad Noor and others PLD 2003 SC 410.
Even otherwise, the claim of adverse possession has to be ignored because it was not pleaded in the Original written statement, while the subsequent written statement, being unauthorized, the plea. Has to be .Ignored. No amount of evidence could be led in support of such plea. Neither the respondents nor the Court can set up the case different from one pleaded by the parties in the pleadings.
9. The plea of adverse possession is devoid of any force. There is no evidence on record to this effect. The respondents/ defendants themselves produced copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin Exh.D.3 which evidences the petitioner's possession as occupancy tenants. The evidence of respondent lacks detail as to when his possession became adverse and hostile to the actual owners.
10. As far exchange of the suit property is concerned, the respondents also failed to bring on record any evidence to this effect. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the land bearing Khasra No.3616 measuring 2 Kanals and 18 Marlas was given in exchange to the respondent in exchange of the suit-land. Who is in possession of the land, so exchanged, with the suit-land, if any, the respondents may pursue his remedy against persons in possession of the said land, if advised.
Muhammad Umar Patwari appeared as C.W.1 and stated that the Revenue Record evidences possession of the petitioners. C.W.2 Muhammad Ali Patwari stated that in view of consolidation proceedings the suit property fell to the petitioners.
11. The suit of the petitioners was well within time. The reasoning given by the learned Appellate Court are not sustainable in law. Reliance can be placed on Muhammad Zaman v. Nazir Ahmed and 2 others 2003 CLC 1628, wherein it was held that the possession of the respondent not being proved to be adverse, however, long it may be, it will have no bearing on the title of the petitioner.
The judgment of the learned Appellate Court is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, this civil revision is allowed, the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside and that of the learned trial Court is restored.