' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioners/plaintiffs impugn the concurrent decrees of the learned trial Court dated 29-3-2000 and of the learned appellate Court dated 11-3-2002 whereby a suit filed by the petitioners seeking possession of the suit property has been dismissed.
2. The facts of this case are simple. The suit property comprises of land measuring 9 Marlas, 11 Sarsahi situated in Mauza Jhawarian. Previously, the respondents had filed a declaratory suit claiming title to the suit-land. The petitioners, who were defendants therein, had resisted the suit asserting their own title in the disputed land. In the said suit both parties agreed that the matter be decided on the basis of statements made by two referees nominated by the parties, namely, Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Yar. The two referees made a statement in Court to the effect that the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners was the rightful owner of the suit property. The referees also stated that the present respondents, who were plaintiffs in the previous litigation, were in possession of a Bart of the suit-land and they should vacate the same within 15 days. On the basis of this statement made by the referees, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondents. The decree in the earlier suit has been brought on record as Exh.P.3 in the present case. An appeal was preferred against the aforesaid decree which was dismissed vide appellate decree (Exh.P.7) dated 4-6-1995 and a revision petition (C.R. No,1201 of 1995) was also dismissed vide order (Exh.P.9) on 19-12-1995.
3. It is clear that the subject-matter in the previous litigation included the present suit property and it was held that the present petitioners were owners thereof. Armed with this decision the petitioners filed the present suit seeking possession of the aforesaid property. The learned.. Trial Court framed as many as 7 issues. However, Issues Nos.1 to 3 are dispositive of the present case which have been decided against the petitioners. These two issues were framed in the following terms:-- "1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property and is entitled to the possession of the same?
2.
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?
4. While deciding the aforesaid issues the learned Courts below have accepted the fact that the earlier litigation culminated in favour of the present petitioners. The aforesaid issues have been decided against the petitioners solely on the ground that the earlier suit had been filed by the respondents and not by the present petitioners. From this circumstances it has been concluded that the petitioners were required to file a declaratory suit and as they had not claimed declaration of title, they could not be granted a decree for possession.
5. The aforesaid conclusion is wholly misconceived. It is undisputed that the title of the petitioners in the suit-land stood established through the previous litigation. They were, therefore, justified in filing a suit for possession of the suit property under section 8 of the Specific Relief Act based on their title. It is wholly inconsequential that the previous suit had been filed by the respondents. The material fact is that the title of the suit property was in dispute in the previous litigation and that the dispute had been settled on the basis of statements made by two referees appointed by the parties who had declared the petitioners to be the owners of the suit property.
6. In the above circumstances, it is clear that the learned Courts below have fallen in error while non-suiting the petitioners. The impugned decrees are, therefore, not sustainable. The same are set aside and, as a consequence, a decree as prayed for in the plaint is passed in favour of the petitioners against the respondents/ defendants.