JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioners/plaintiffs are the L.Rs. Of one Asalat Khan. They filed a suit claiming declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit-land measuring 10 Kanals, 4 Marlas which was part of the Shamlat Deh, comprised in Khasra Nos.1565 (5 Kanals, 3 Marlas) and 1566 (5 Kanals, 1 Marla) appearing in the Jamabandi for the year 1915-1916. The respondents/defendants who are the L.Rs. Of Munshi son of Lal Shah, resisted the suit. It was their case that by virtue of the judgment of the Tehsildar dated 22-7-1971 (Exh.P.5) and the decree of the learned Civil Court, dated 4-4-1974 (Exh.D.7) they were owners in possession of the suit-land. The respondents/defendants based their claim entirely on the aforesaid documents Exh.P.5 and Exh D.7.
2. A bare perusal of the `Jamabandi' for the year 1915-1916 (Exh.P.1) shows that Asalat Khan (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) was in cultivating possession of the suit-land. Lal Shah (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) was in cultivating possession of two other Khasra numbers i.e. 1292 and 1433 as is evident from Exh. P. 1.
3. The predecessor of the respondents/defendants initiated proceedings before the Tehsildar/A.C.-I claiming declaration that they are occupancy tenants in cultivating possession of Khasra Nos.1699/1566 and 1565. It is important to bear in mind that the petitioners and their predecessor- in-interest, at the relevant time, were not impleaded as defendants before the Tehsildar/A.C.-I. The array of parties shows that the proceedings were filed against some of the owners of the Shamlat, namely, Muhammad Din, Muhammad Sharif sons of Nawab and Nazar and Abdul Ghani sons of Allah Dad only. The Naib-Tehsildar decreed the suit in favour of the predecessor of the respondents/defendants as per order (Exh.P.5). Thereafter, based on the aforesaid decision (Exh.P.1) consequential entries were made in the Revenue Record showing Munshi Shah (father of the respondents) as being in cultivating possession of the suit-land.
4. Subsequently, the respondents filed a suit before a learned Civil Court and obtained the decree Exh.D.7 mentioned above. In this suit also the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest, were not impleaded as defendants. Only the Naib-Tehsildar and some other Government functionaries were arrayed as defendants.
5. Firstly, the learned Courts below have proceeded on the erroneous premise that Lal Shah (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/defendants) was the occupancy tenant in cultivating possession of the suit-land comprised in Khasra Nos.1565 and 1566. This conclusion is quite clearly contrary to the contents of the Jamabandi C (Exh.P.1) and constitutes misreading of the said document. As noted above, Lal Shah was only shown in cultivating possession of Khasra Nos.1292 and 1433. Secondly, the Courts have relied on the decrees of the Tehsildar (Exh.P.5) and of the Civil Court (Exh.D.7) to non-suit the petitioners even though they or their predecessors-in-interest, not being parties, were not bound by the said decrees.
6. In view of the above misreading of evidence and the unjustified reliance on Exh.P.5 and Exh.D.7, it is clear that the learned Courts below have misdirected themselves and have exercised their jurisdiction with material irregularity. The impugned decrees of the learned trial Court dated 29-5- 1991 and of the learned Appellate Court dated 13-9-2000 are, therefore, set aside. Based on the available evidence, the petitioners are declared to be owners in possession of the suit-land measuring 10 Kanals, 4 Marlas comprised in Khasra Nos.1565 and 1566.