CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---The brief facts out of which present revision petition a arises are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, Mandi Bha-ud-Din. The contents of plaint reveals that Rafi-us-Salam High School, Tehsil Malakwal is owned and managed by the Government by virtue of Notification dated 30-9-1972 under Martial Regulation No.118 and as such no one else except the Education department has got concern with the aforesaid institution. The contents of plaint further reveal that building of Government Rafi-us- Salam High School, Malikwal has an area measuring 5-kanala and 8 marlas comprising Khasra Nos. 4453/4195/3217, 4454/4195/3217, 4455/4195/3217, 4456/4195, 4457/4195, 4458/4195, Khewat Nos. 471, 475, 691, 507, 547 & 635 and Khatoni Nos. 962,966, 1321,1131,1184 & 1187 as per register of record of rights for the year 1984-85. The building of said institution consists of school building, shops and ground. The respondents-defendants are bent upon to interfere in the management of High School as well as to damage the School building illegally and without lawful entitlement. The contents of plaint further reveal that the defendants-respondents have been asked a number of times not to interfere in the ownership and possession of the petitioners-plaintiffs and to make encroachment in the building of Government Rafi-us-Islam High School, but of no avail. The respondents-defendants filed written statement controverting the allegations leveled in the plaint.
Out of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- Issues
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaint has not been properly verified hence the suit is not maintainable? OPD
3. Whether the proper description of the suit property has not been mentioned by the plaintiffs?
OPD.
4. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties? OPD
5. Whether the suit has been filed with male fide intention, hence the same is liable to be dismissed with special costs? OPD
6. Relief.
The learned Trial Court partly decreed the suit in respect of the disputed property excluding the building owned and possessed by Madrissa Arrabia Rafi-us-Salam, Malikwal having an area measuring one kanal and 15 marlas in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs and against the respondents-defendants vide judgment and decree dated 5-10-1995. The petitioners-plaintiffs being aggrieved filed and appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Mandi Bha-ud-Din, who dismissed the same vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14-3-2000, hence, the present revision petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that the property in-question is owned by the petitioners in terms of Notification issued by the competent authority under the Martial Regulation 118 of 1972 on 01-10-1972. The area, which was excluded through impugned judgment, is also part and parcel of the property owned by the institution blown as Rafi-us-Salam High School. He further submits that both the Courts below have decided the case without reappraisal of documentary evidence produced by the petitioners-plaintiffs to show that the land in-question excluded in the impugned .Judgment and decree is owned by Rafi-us-Salam High School and Madrissa Arabia is also part and . Parcel of the said High School and the same has no independent entity, therefore, the impugned judgments of both the Courts are the result of mis reading and non-reading of the record.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that Madrissa Arabia is an independent institution as is evident from the certificate issued on 24-06-1968 under the. Provisions of Certificate of Registration of Societies Act XXI of 1860. The land in-question was purchased by the management of Jamia Ahal-e-Sunnatwal Jamat in the name of Madrissa Arabia on 17 -5-1963.
The respondents have only nationalized Rafi-us-Salam High School, Malikwal as is evident from the Notification issued on 30-9-1972 wherein the said institution is mentioned at Serial No.36, therefore, both the Courts below were justified to exclude the land in question to the extent of land owned by Madrissa Arabia, Rafi-us-Salam.
4. The learned counsel of the petitioners in rebuttal submits that the judgments of both the Courts below are the result of mis reading and non-reading of the record.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. It is admitted fact that both the Courts below have given findings of facts against the petitioners after proper appreciation of evidence on record that Rafi-usSalam High School and Madrissa Arabia are two independent entities/institutions as is evident from the contents of certificate dated 24-6-1968 issued by the Assistant Registrar Joint Stock Companies under the provisions of Registration of Societies Act, 1806 whereas the contents of the Punjab Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 30 91972 contained entry at Serial No.36 which reveals that Rafius-Salam High School Malikwal is nationalized and not Madrissa Arabia. Statement of PW.1 Malik Ahmad Hassan Headmaster of the Institution is not corroborated by any independent evidence produced by the petitioners before the Trial Court. As mentioned above, Ex.P.3 Notification issued by the competent authority under the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No.118 does not contain entry with regard to nationalization of Madrissa Arabia Rafi-ul-Islam which is registered body as is evident from contents of Ex.D6. Sale-deed Ex.D.2 reveals that land measuring 1 Kanal, 5 Marlas originally owned by Syed Muhammad Fazal Shah consisting of Khasra Nos.4453/4195/3217 was purchased for the construction of rooms of Madrissa Arabia Rafi-ul-Islam and thereafter Madrissa Arabia Rafi-ul- Islam was established on the said piece of land as is evident from the contents of Exs. D3, D4, D5.
Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact against the petitioners that the land measuring 1 Kanal, 15 Marlas is not part and parcel of the Institution Rafi-ul-Islam High School which was nationalized vide Notification dated 1-10-1972. It is settled principle of law that mere mutation does not either create any right or extinguish existing right unless the transactions/facts on the basis of which the same has been sanctioned, if denied, are independently proved to have existed. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioners failed to bring on record any evidence to show that land in question was mutated in favour of the petitioners by cogent evidence. Therefore, judgments of both the Courts below are in accordance with the law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:- Ahmad Khan's case (KLR 1994 Revenue Cases 125)
Muhammad Din's case (1992 ALD 459)
Hakim Khan's case (1992 SCMR 1832)
Mst. Nasreen's case (1990 SCMR400)
Fauja's case (NLR 1994 Appeal Cases 142)
Karam Shah's case (PLJ 1988 Lahore 413 )
Sh. Muhammad Sharif Opal's case (PLD 1990 Lahore 229)
It is also admitted fact that respondent proved on record by producing Ex.D2 sale deed that land in question measuring 1 Kanal, 15 Marlas was purchased in the name of Madrissa Arabia Rafi-ul- Islam. It is settled principle of law that registered document has sanctity attached to it and stronger evidence is required to rebut the same. In the present case petitioners failed to rebut the same by producing any independent evidence. Therefore, judgments of both the Courts below are in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mirza Muhammad Sharifs case (NLR 1993 Civil 148). The land in question was purchased in the name of Madrissa Arabia on 17-5-1963 as mentioned above, therefore, both the Courts below are justified to non-suit the petitioners to the extent of land mentioned in the said sale-deed. It is settled principle of law that this Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings of Courts below while exercising powers under Section 115 of CPC unless and until the same is the result of mis reading and non reading of record or both the Courts below have decided the same in violation of principle laid down by the Superior Courts. It is admitted fact that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of the facts against the petitioners. The Privy Council has also laid down parameters to interfere in the findings of the Courts below while exercising power under Section 115 of CPC in N. S. Vankatagiri Ayyangar and another Vs. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madrass (PLD 1949 P.C. 26). The relevant observation is as follows:- "This is section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters: (a) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with maternal irregularity, that is, by committing some error or procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however profoundly, from the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law."
The judgment of the Privy Council was considered and relied upon by this Court in Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore Vs. Syed Khalid Mehmood. (NLR 1985 Civil 114).
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the judgment of this Court is upheld by, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P.
No. 1146-1984 vide judgment dated 31-3-1985 which was re-affirmed and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore Vs. Ghulam Qadir (PLD 1988 SC 625). The learned counsel of the petitioners failed to bring the case within the principle prescribed by Privy Council in the aforesaid judgment. The learned counsel of the petitioners failed to point out any piece of evidence, which was non-read and mis read by both the Courts below, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings of the facts of the Courts below, which have been given after proper appreciation of evidence on record.
In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.
Civil revision .