' Instant civil revision assailed judgments/decrees, dated 17-6-1998 and 7-4-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, respectively.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that petitioners filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the respondents claiming that land measuring 8 Kanals, detailed in the plaint is in their continuous/undisturbed possession and their possession having been matured into a title by way of ad-verse possession, respondents have no right, title or interest therewith, but Ghulam Qadir respondent No.1 out of collusion got his name entered in the Revenue Record showing him as a co-owner, thus the same may be declared void and the respondents may be restrained from interfering in their possession through a decree for permanent injunction.
3. Respondents being defendants in the suit contested the same by filing their written statement and asserted that possession of the petitioners is that of tenants under them. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. Learned Civil Judge, seized of the matter, after doing the needful dismissed the suit of the petitioners with costs, vide judgment/decree, dated 17-6-1998.
4. Petitioners aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, but remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed vide judgment/decree, dated 7-4-2000. Thereafter, they filed instant revision petition for adjudgment of concurrent judgments/decrees of the two Courts below and the respondents in response to notice by this Court have appeared and are represented through their counsel.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the Courts below erroneously did not consider that possession of the petitioners over the suit property was adverse, hostile and open, which had matured into a title. It was further submitted that documentary evidence in form of Revenue Record (Exh.P.1 to Exh.P.4) clearly proved continuous and undisturbed possession of the petitioners for more than twelve years. It was further. Emphasized that change of Revenue Record in the year 1969, showing petitioners as tenants of the suit-land was contrary to. Reality.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the arguments of the petitioners, supported the concurrent judgments of the two Courts below and urged that petitioners have not filed suit on the basis of any derived title rather it was based on their claimed adverse possession, which was not proved on the record, thus their suit was correctly dismissed. It was further argued that plea of adverse possession can be the defence to the suit but it cannot be sued as a weapon of attack, hence according to him, suit could not have been filed on the basis of the asserted matured title through adverse possession. It was further emphasized that both the Courts below returned their findings according to evidence on the file, which could not be shown to have been misread or non- read, hence no inference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court is permissible, under law.
7. I have minutely considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Petitioners' own documents (Exh.P.1 to P.4) proved that their predecessor Meera son of Sagar was an occupancy tenant without paying any rent of the land in his possession, which was changed in the year 1969-70 on account of non-payment of dues in terms of section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1892. Petitioners did not challenge the change in the Revenue Record for long twenty years till the suit in hand was filed on 7-5-1990 and that too on the basis of adverse possession again without challenging the change above referred. Suit of the petitioners, as it stood, was not competent, as plea of adverse possessions could be used as a shield by the defendants but it could not be made basis for filing the suit claiming proprietary rights on the basis thereof. Besides all this, adverse possession has already been declared to be contrary to the Injunctions of Islam by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Maqbool Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan 1991 SCM R 2063, which otherwise could not be proved on the record, as mere entry of nonpayment of rent to the owner in the year 1969-70 was not enough in support of the relief prayed. Documents Exh.D.1 to Exh.D.8 and Khasra Girdawari Exh.D.9 revealed that at the time of institution of suit, the petitioners were tenants, hence no decree in their favour could have been passed .About their status earlier to 1969.
8. For the reasons noted above and scan of evidence on the file revealed that none of the Courts below committed any illegality/ irregularity as envisaged by section 115, C.P.C. Because they passed the impugned judgments strictly in consonance with the evidence on the record. No case for interference in revisional jurisdiction could be made out, hence this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with, no order as to costs.