' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---The case of the petitioners as raised in their plaint dated 14-5-1986 (in their suit for possession) is that the respondents illegally and forcibly took possession of the disputed suit-land in the absence of petitioners one year before the suit (para.6 of the plaint). And that the area so illegally occupied was unauthorizedly encroached upon by the respondents.
2. The respondents in reply thereto asserted their purchase of the suit-land through sale-deed of 1976 (Exh.P.1) and claimed their possession over the suit-land thirteen years prior to the suit and their construction and residence upon the suit-land eight years prior to their first written statement dated 30-9-1987. Upon the disputed and controverted pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed a number of issues. Issue No.2 related to the limitation of the suit. The onus on this issue was placed on the petitioner plaintiffs. And that Issue No.6 related to the petitioners' entitlement for decree for possession as prayed for. The learned Courts below concurrently decided both these issues against the petitioners. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Judge and so was the appeal by the learned first appellate Court respectively through judgments and decrees dated 14-12-1996 and 18-7-2001. Hence the present civil revision.
3. The learned counsel for the parties state that the only questions requiring consideration of this Court are the questions of limitation and entitlement of the petitioners to decree as incorporated in the above referred Issues Nos.2 and 6.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the learned Courts below incorrectly decided the issue of limitation as the petitioners had proved their pleadings beyond any doubt. And that the petitioners' suit was within time. Further contended that the learned Courts below misread the evidence to dismiss respectively the suit and the appeal and also to decide the petitioners' entitlement to the decree.
' Contrarily the leaned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgments and decrees.
5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on examination of the record, I don not find any merit in the present civil revision. In order to prove their pleadings as raised in the plaint, the petitioners presented their star witness Ghulam Rasool plaintiff as P.W.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners read out the evidence of P.W.3 to state that the petitioners had been able to prove the pleas raised in the plaint and also the question of limitation. In his deposition, Ghulam Rasool (P.W.3) stated that the respondent defendants had raised construction upon the suit-land about five years prior to his date of evidence (which fell on 24-2-1990). He further deposed in the cross-examination that he had stopped cultivating the suit-land about 18/20 years ago and about other facts, he showed his lack of knowledge.
6. The law is well-settled. The petitioners were under a legal obligation to prove that the respondents had illegally, forcibly and unauthorizedly taken possession of the suit-land in their absence in May, 1985 purportedly one year prior to the suit (as pleaded in para.6 of the plaint). No statement has been made by P.W.3 as to the factum of illegal possession in May, 1985 or earlier or around thereto. He has only referred to the construction made by the respondents in 1985. Raising of construction cannot be interpreted to mean A that the respondents' possession also commenced from the date of construction. It is evident that the possession must be with the respondents that they were unobstructively and uninterruptly able to raise construction upon the suit-land and to maintain their residence.
7. I do not find any misreading or non-reading in the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. The learned first appellate Court while analyzing, assessing and appreciating evidence of the parties validly held as under:-- "6. Whereas Issue No.2 is concerned, it was a circular and important issue between the parties. The learned trial Court held that the suit was clearly time-barred. The statement of P.W.3, Ghulam Rasul predecessor-in-interest of the appellants himself is very important in this respect that he does not know whether the respondents obtained the possession 2/3 years before the completion of the sale-deed, and raised the construction. He failed to confirm the age of the trees. They were planted child, when the possession was obtained and now the age of his said child was 50 years. He does not know about the number of rooms constructed by the respondetts. He does not know whether the respondents purchased the land from Amir Loon and the earth was removed from the said land for bricks. He admitted that the respondents filled the earth and raised the construction.
Exh.D.1 shows that the respondents purchased the land from Amir Loon. He is unable to confirm the measurement of the disputed property. He admitted that the respondents have been in possession of the disputed property as owners. He further admitted that the respondents declared themselves owners of the land in their possession. No other witness was produced by the appellants in order to prove when the respondents encroached the land of the appellants. The onus was on the appellants to prove that his suit was within limitation, but he himself failed to prove that when the respondents encroached his land. On the other hand, he failed to deny specifically that the respondents obtained the possession of the disputed property 2/3 years prior to the sale-deed Exh.D.1 and filled the earth and raise the construction. It is clear admission on the part of the appellant that the respondents have been in possession of the disputed property as owners. The reference of the learned counsel for the appellants to the D. Ws. And Exh.D.1 is of no importance as the appellants have to stand on their own legs. The appellant failed to prove that the suit was within limitation and as such, the findings of the learned trial Court on this issue are also upheld
12. The appellants filed suit for possession on the basis 01 the report of P.W.2 who was retired Qanoongo. The report of less than Revenue Officer is not considered valid. Qanoongo does not fall within the definition of Revenue Officer as he was below the rank of Naib Tehsildar. He brought the encroachment of three Khasra numbers jointly. He did not measure the land of the respondents at site. He started demarcation from the point Sarhadda Saraee Bhaui Karm Singh, which was joint boundary of three villages were clearly demarcated. The demarcation itself is effective on the basis of which decree for possession cannot be passed. Moreover, there is no independent evidence in to prove that the respondents encroached upon the land of the appellants forcibly and illegally, whereas it is proved on the record that the respondents purchased the land from Amir Loon prior to the sale-deed Exh.D.1 which \Ala., a uneven land, wherefrom earth was handed over to the respondents, which is admitted by the P.W.3, Ghulam Rasul himself. He neither raised the object when the possession was handed over to respondents. So, it is not proved that the respondents encroached upon the disputed land. Therefore, Issue No.6 is decided against the appellants."
8. In view of the absence of any misreading, non-reading, excess of authority or material irregularity, this Court cannot revisionally interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees which are accordingly upheld. This civil revision is thus dismissed.