' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, I. The dispute between the parties relates to land measuring 5 Marlas in Khewat No,31- Min, Khatooni No,211 in Killa No,7-Min of Square No,42, Chak No,42-Shumali, Tehsil and District Sargodha. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a declaratory suit claiming to be owners of the suit property. They claim that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Ghaus Muhammad had forcibly occupied the suit property and had constructed three shops thereon which had been rented by him to respondents Nos.8 to 10. The suit was resisted by the petitioners who denied that the respondents/plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property or that they were entitled to its possession.
2. Issues were framed by the learned trial Court of which Issues Nos.7 and 8 are pivotal. Both learned counsel confined their arguments to these issues which were framed in the fpllowing terms:--
(7) Whether the plaintiffs are owners of disputed property? OPP
(8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the possession of the disputed property (land)? OPP
3. The learned Courts below have concurrently decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs vide decree of the learned trial Court, dated 24-7-1993 and the appellate Court dated 7-2-2000. Hence, this revision petition.
4. Both Court below have relied on the report (Exh.P.2) dated 29-5-1985 and the site plan showing encroachments (Exh.P.3) annexed to the aforesaid report. The learned Courts below have fallen into error by relying on the aforesaid report (Exh.P.2) and the site plan (Exh.P.3), firstly because the said report does not comply with the requirements of Chapter 1-M, Vol.I of the High Court Rules and Orders because the same was A prepared by a Girdawar and not by any Revenue Officer.
Secondly, the aforesaid report was prepared unilaterally at the behest of the respondents/plaintiffs prior to the filing of their declaratory suit. Most importantly, however, the report cannot be relied upon because the petitioners were never associated with the same and it was prepared behind their back. Muhammad Nawaz, Girdawar, appeared as P.W.1 and deposed that no notice of the demarcation proceedings had been issued to the petitioners. This was confirmed by Amanullah, Patwari, who appeared as P.W.2. Even Karmatullah, one of the plaintiffs, who appeared as P.W.6, acknowledged that the petitioners were not associated when the report was prepared in these circumstances, I am not left in any doubt that the aforesaid report (Exh.P.2) and the site plan annexed therewith could not have been relied upon by the learned Courts below as evidence in support of the case set up by the respondents/plaintiffs. This was, particularly, so considering that the petitioners, admittedly were in possession of the shops built by them through tenants (respondents Nos.8 to 10).
5. In addition to the above, even the report (Exh.P.2) does not make any mention of Ghaus Muhammad (predecessorin-interest of the petitioners). It is only in the site .Plan (Exh.P.3) that he has been shown as an encroacher. The basis for including the name of Ghaus Muhammad in the site plan (Exh.P.3) has not been brought out in the report (Exh.P.2) or otherwise through the record.
At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the petitioners had themselves filed an application before the learned trial. Court for appointment of a Local Commission with the object of demarcating the property in dispute. Saadat Pervaiz, Tehsildar was appointed as Local Commission who prepared his report (Exh.D.2) dated 26-12-1992 in his report, the Tehsildar clearly stated that because of urbanization and construction in the area, it was no longer possible to demarcate the land and to identify the disputed area in relation to the title claimed by the respondents/plaintiffs. Since the suit had been filed by the respondents, it was incumbent upon them to prove their title through cogent and admissible evidence. The entire evidence, discussed above, shows that the respondents/plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus to prove placed on them in respect of Issues Nos.7 and 8 reproduced above.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the impugned decrees are not legally sustainable The same are, therefore, set aside and, as a consequence, the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is dismissed with costs.