MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.--- The suit for possession filed by the appellants against the respondents was allowed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 5.5.2003. But on appeal of the respondents, the judgment and decree has been reversed and the suit of the appellants stands dismissed.
2 Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that the appellants claims that the land measuring 16 kanals and 14 marlas, bearing old Khasra No. 4664/1392 and new Khasra number 1272, was owned by an evacuee owner. This was transferred in favour of Rehmat Khan, predecessor-ininterest of the appellants, who exchanged the said land with Hayat Ullah and from Hayat, they had purchased the same through registered sale-deed. Out of the said land, about 15 marlas have been encroached by the respondents and therefore, on the basis of their title, the appellants sought the possession. The respondents denied the ownership of the appellants and stated that out of the aforesaid khasra number, only 14 kanals and 14 marlas was transferred to Rehmat Khan, which could ultimately devolved upon the appellants/plaintiffs and, therefore, the story about the encroachment and the appellants' claim for possession of the suit land, is absolutely baseless. The learned Trial Court framed the issues, out of which, following- are important:- (1), Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as claimed? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of disputed land measuring 16 kanals, 14 marlas according to the record of rights and they forcibly possessed 15 marlas of land and constructed boundary walls in the disputed property? OPP
(3) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD The learned Trial Court by returning findings in favour of the appellants, upon Issues Nos. 1 and 2, and against the defendant on Issue No. 3 allowed the suit, through the judgment and decree dated 5.5.2003, which as mentioned earlier, was challenged by the respondents and has been reversed..
The learned Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the aforesaid khasra number was originally owned by one Hindu namely Thakar Das and after the partition of the sub-Continent, out of this, only the land measuring 14 kanals and 14 marlas, was allotted to Rehmat Ali. This is envisages by Ex.D-6. Thereafter, Rehmat Ali transferred the land allotted to him in favour of Hayat Ullah son of Muhammad Azeem Khan, through an exchange. Hayat Ullah remained in possession of only 14 kanals and 14 marlas, whereas the Central Government, out of the said ' khasra, is shown to be the owner of the remaining 2 kanals as per Ex.D-4. This was the position subsisting throughout, when in the year 1981-82 for no reason, the name of Central Government was excluded.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Court below has ignored the important documentary evidence, such as Jamabandis for the year 1981-82; it is stated that infact the entire 16 kanals and 14 marlas was transferred to Rehmat Ali and this is what ultimately has come to the appellants.
4. I am afraid, that the above contention has no force, because when asked, the appellants have not been able to show from any order of allotment passed by the Rehabilitation and the Settlement Department, in his favour that the entire land of the said khasra was allotted to Rehmat Ali; the copy of the RL-II has also not been produced, which was the best evidence for the appellants to show the extent of Rehmat Ali's allotment. This therefore, tantamount to the withholding of the best evidence and thus the presumption can be validly drawn against the appellants; moreover, as per Jamabandis placed on the record by the defendants and considered by the learned Appellate Court, two kanals from the khasra, has been in the ownership of the Central Government, throughout this, the entries were changed in 1981-82, and that too without any order to support and justify the change. Therefore, the appellants cannot claim the ownership of any other part of the said khasra, which has never been transferred to their predecessor, as they have not proved so through the best evidence.
5. As regards the Issue No. 3, is concerned, suffice it to say that the learned Appellate Court has also rightly held that the possession of the respondents over the suit land is since 1986 and the present suit having been brought on 19.8.1998 is beyond the limitation.
In view of the above, I do not find any error either legal or factual in the impugned judgment and decree, calling for interference in second appeal. Therefore, this appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
R.S.A, Dismissed.