' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-9-2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shakargarh, accepting appeal of Ghulam Nabi, father of the respondents and granting him a decree for possession of a shop situated in Bazar of village Dodhu Chak, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowal, by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 3-12-1995 passed by the Civil Judge, Shakargarh dismissing suit of the father of the respondents.
2. Ghulam Nabi father of the respondents filed a suit for possession of a shop situated in a Bazar of village Dodhu Chak on the ground that he was in possession of the shop in question as a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir State after partition of Indo-Pak Subcontinent and this shop was an evacuee property. Ghulam Nabi deceased claimed that under Settlement and Abadkari Scheme, he had become owner of the shop on the basis of possession, which he subsequently handed over to petitioner, who was his old friend, under a license. Petitioner was to vacate the shop in his possession on demand of Ghulam Nabi and since his sons have grown up and he wants this shop for his own use, he required the petitioner to vacate the shop but he refused, whereupon the suit for possession was filed.
3. Petitioner being defendant in the suit contested it by filing written statement controverting the allegations in the plaint, asserting his own possessory title under the scheme on which Ghulam Nabi had relied.
4. The learned trial Court after framing as many as eight issues arising out of controversial pleadings of the parties called upon them to produce evidence in support of their respective cases, whereafter, it dismissed the suit of Ghulam Nabi, father of the respondents, vide his judgment and decree dated 3-12-1995.
5. Ghulam Nabi, father of the respondents, aggrieved of the dismissal of his suit filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Shakargarh, which was ultimately accepted by him vide his judgment and decree dated 28-9-2000, granting Ghulam Nabi a decree for possession as prayed by him.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Additional District Judge, while reversing the judgment of the learned trial Court has ignored evidence on the file and thus returned findings, which run counter to the record. He further submits that under Abadkari Scheme refugees from Jammu and Kashmir State were entitled to only one shop, which was in their possession, and the father of the respondents being already in possession of the shop at Serial No,18 of the Register Abadkari (Exh.P.W./2/1) could not lay any claim to the shop in possession of the petitioner. He further submits that the shop in possession of the petitioner was the only shop with him, which should not have been taken away. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has refuted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has supported the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge.
7. I have given my careful thought to the respective contentions of both the counsel for the parties and have also examined the record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents also admits that only one shop in possession of a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir State could have been claimed by him. I have examined document (Exh . P.W. 2/1), which is a copy of Register Abadkari. It contains an entry of Ghulam Nabi refugee (father of the respondents) at serial No,16 showing his possession over a shop of one room, which was previously owned by Dittu son of Peshawari Mahajan, an evacuee owner, but he lays his claim on it while in possession of another shop shown at Serial No,18 of the same register. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to entries of this register in Column No,9, wherein against shop at Serial No,18, there is a note, which reads as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} and on the basis of this entry, he asserts that shop at Serial No,18 was in possession of Ghulam Nabi and thus another shop cannot be given to him. This shop at Serial No,18 was owned by Mst. Hari widow of Gorad Mahajna and thus is a different shop from the one mentioned at Serial No,16 of this register. From the entries of this register I am clear that Ghulam Nabi being already in possession of a shop shown at Serial No,18 of the register which was owned by Mst. Hari, an evacuee, could not lay his claim to another shop shown at Serial No,16 of the same register, which was owned by another evacuee, solely on the ground that he handed over his shop to the petitioner under an undertaking that he will return whenever it is needed by Ghulam Nabi. Shop No,18 was reconstructed by him on its occupation after partition of Indo-Pak Subcontinent because under the aforesaid scheme one refugee was entitled to only one shop. Besides the fact that Ghulam Nabi was not entitled to second shop, he could not prove that shop at Serial No,16 was given to the petitioner under some license. It remains a fact that mere entry of the name of Ghulam Nabi at Serial No,16, as well, does not give him a permit to have two shops. Evidence of Ghulam Nabi consisted of five witnesses. D P.W.1, was a Patwari summoned to produce original record of Exh.P.W.2/1, P.W.2 was Halqa Patwari, who prepared Exh.P.W.2/1 and proved it to be true copy of the original, P.W.3 was Sardar Khan clerk of an Advocate, who prepared the , site-plan of the shop in question and P.W.4 was plaintiff himself. P.W.5 Sardar Ahmed stated that disputed shop was provisionally given to the petitioner, but during his cross- examination he admitted that he is brother- in-law of Ghulam Nabi. This witness further deposed that the petitioner is in possession of this shop for the last ten years where he is doing business of tobacco. If statement of P.W.5, who is brother-in law of Ghulam Nabi deceased, is excluded from consideration, being an interested witness, there remains not an iota of evidence to support stance of the respondents that this shop was given to the petitioner for temporary occupation with a condition to return it to them.
8. Petitioner produced D.W.1 a retired Excise inspector, who remained posted in this area from 1960 to 1964 and from 1966 to 1969 and stated that the petitioner was a license holder for sale of tobacco since sixties. He further deposed that he visited the shop in question, which was in possession of the petitioner on 31-12-1962 and saw document Exh.D.W.1/1 with him, which was a site-plan approved for construction of the shop in possession of the petitioner D.W.2 Muhammad Baqir stated that elder brother of the petitioner had been doing the tobacco business in the shop in question and then petitioner started the same business in this shop. The approved memo. Exh.D.2 was scribed by him. D.W.3 Abdul Hameed stated that Exh.D.2 was executed between the parties and the petitioner is in possession of this shop since before 1965. Petitioner also produced receipts of payment of property tax of the shop in question as Exh.D.5 to Exh.D.9, which show that this shop had been in possession of the father of the petitioner and after him, the petitioner was in its possession right from 1959. Petitioner had been able to prove from documentary as well as oral evidence that he is in possession of the shop under his occupation after arrival of the parties to the village where shops are situated and as against it respondents' father had neither any entitlement to this shop nor he could show that its possession was given by him under a license to the petitioner. A mere entry in Abadkari register in Column No,9 referred to above does not by itself prove the case of respondents.
9. From the above discussion, I am clear in my mind that shop in possession of the petitioner could not have been ordered to be delivered to the father of the respondents, who is already in possession of another shop. Learned Additional District Judge while reversing judgment of the learned trial Court ignored entries of Abadkari Register at Serial No,18 and thus his judgment being tainted with the defect of non-reading of the evidence, I feel, is not sustainable and accordingly is set aside, with the result that judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge on 3-12-1995 stands revived, whereby suit of Ghulam Nabi, father of the respondents was dismissed.
10. This revision petition is accordingly accepted with the result noted above leaving the parties to bear their own costs.