The brief facts out of which present revision petition arises are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, Mandi Bha-ud-Din. The contents of plaint reveals that Rafi-us-Salam High School, Tehsil Malakwal is owned and managed by the Government by virtue of Notification dated ' 30.9.1972 under Marshal Law Regulation No. 118 and as such no one else except the Education Department has got concern with the aforesaid institution. The contents of plaint further "reveal that building of Government Rafi-us-Salam High School, Malikwal has an area measuring 5 Kanal and 8 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos.4453/4195/3217, 4454/4195/3217, 4455/4195/3217. 4456/4195, 4457/41,95, 4458/4195, Khewat Nos.471, 475. 691, 507, 547 and 635 and Khatoni Nos.962, 966, 1321, 1131, 1184 and 1187 as per register of record of rights for the year 1984-85. The building of said institution consists of school building, shops and ground. The respondents-defendants are bent upon to interfere in the management of High School as well as to damage the School building illegally and without lawful entitlement. The contents of plaint further reveal that the defendants-respondents have been asked a number of times not to interfere in the ownership and possession of the petitioners-plaintiffs and to make encroachment in the building of (government Rafi-us-Salam High School, but of no avail. The respondents-defendants filed written statement controverting the -allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of pleadings of the parties the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- Issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaint has not been property verified hence the suit is not maintainable? OPD
(3) Whether the proper description of the suit property has not been mentioned by the plaintiffs?
OPD'
(4) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of the necessary parties? OPD
(5) Whether the suit has been filed with mala fide intention, hence the same is liable to the dismissed with special costs? OPD The learned Trial Court partly decreed the suit in respect of the disputed property excluding the building owned and possessed by Madrissa Arrabia Rafi-us-Salam, Malikwal having an area measuring one Kanal and 45 Marlas in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs and against the respondents-defendants vide judgment and decree dated 5.10.1995. The petitioners- plaintiffs being aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi Bha-ud-Din, who dismissed the same vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14.3.2000, hence, the present revision petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that the property in question is owned by the petitioners in terms of Notification issued by the competent authority under the Martial Law Regulation 118 of 1972 on 1.10.1972. The area, which was excluded through impugned judgment, is also part and parcel of the property owned by the institution known as Rafi-us-Salam High School.
He further submits that both the Courts below have decided the case without reappraisal of documentary evidence produced by the petitioners-plaintiffs to show that the land in question excluded in the impugned judgment and decree is owned by Rafi-us-Salam High School and Madrissa Arabia is also part and parcel of the said High School and the same has no independent entity, therefore, the impugned judgments of both the Courts are the result of misreading and non- reading of the record.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that Madrissa Arabia is an independent institution as is evident from the certificate issued on 24.6.1968 under the provisions of Certificate of Registration of Societies Act XXI of .1860. The land in-question was purchased by the management of Jamia Ahal-e-Sunnatwal Jamat in the name of Madrissa Arabia 17.5.1963. The respondents have only nationalized Rafi-us-Salam High School, Malikwal as is evident from the Notification issued on 30.9.1972 wherein the said institution is mentioned at Serial No. 36, therefore, both the Courts below were justified to exclude the land in question to the extent of land owned by Madrissa Arabia, Rafi- us-Salam.
4. The learned counsel of the petitioners in rebuttal submits that the judgments of both the Courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of the record.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. It is admitted fact that both the Courts below have given findings of facts against the petitioners after proper appreciation of evidence on record that Rafi-us- Salam High School and Madrissa Arabia are two independent entities/institutions as is evident from the contents of certificate dated 24.6.1968 issued by the Assistant Registrar Joint Stock Companies under the provisions of Registration of Societies Act, 1806 whereas the contents of the Punjab Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 30.9.1972 contained entry at Serial No.36 which reveals that Rafi-us-Salam High School Malikwal is nationalized and not Madrissa Arabia. Statement of P.W. 1, Malik Ahmad Hassan, Headmaster of the Institution is not corroborated by any independent evidence produced by the petitioners before the Trial Court. As mentioned above, Exh.3 Notification issued by the competent authority under the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 does not contain entry with regard to nationalization of Madrissa Arabia Rafi-us-Salam which is registered body as is evident from contents of Exh. D.6. Sale-deed Exh. D.2 reveals that land measuring 1 Kanal, 5 Marlas originally owned by Syed Muhammad Fazal Shah consisting of Khasra Nos.4453/4195/3217. Was purchased for the construction of rooms of Madrissa Arabia Rafi-us-Salam and thereafter, Madrissa Arabia Rafi-us-Salam was established on the said piece of land as is evident from the contents of Exhs.
D.3, D.4 and D.5. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact against the petitioners that land measuring 1 Kanal, 15 Marlas is not part and parcel of the Institution Rafi- us-Salam High School which was nationalized vide Notification dated 1.10:1972. It is settled principle of law that mere mutation does not either create any right or extinguish existing, right unless the transactions/facts on the basis of which the same had been sanctioned, if denied, are independently proved to have existed, It is pertinent to mention here that petitioners failed to bring on record any, evidence to show that land in question was mutated in favour -of the petitioners by cogent evidence. Therefore, judgments of both the Courts below are in accordance with the law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:- Adam Khan's case 1995 MLD 506; Muhammad Din's case 3992 ALD 459; Hakim Khan's case 1992 SCMR 1832; Mst. Nasreen's case 1990 SCMR 400; Pauja's case 1993 MLD 1078; Karam Shah's case 1988 CLC 1812; Sh. Muhammad Sharif Opal's case PLD 1990 Lahore 229 It is also admitted fact that respondent proved on record by producing Exh. D.2 sale-deed that land in question measuring 1 Kanal, 15 Marlas was purchased in the name of Madrissa Arabia Rafi-us- Salam. It is settled principle of law that registered document has sanctity attached to it and stronger evidence is required to rebut the same, In the present case petitioners failed to rebut the same by producing any independent evidence. Therefore, Judgments of both the Courts below are in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mirza Muhammad Sharifs case 1993 SCMR 462. The land in-question was purchased in the name of Madrissa Arabia on 17.5.1963 as mentioned above, therefore, both the Courts below are Justified to non-suit the petitioners to the extent of land mentioned in the said sale- deed, It is settled principle of law that this Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings of Courts below while exercising powers under section 115 of C.P.C, unless and until the same is the result of misreading and non-reading of record or both the Courts below have decided the same in violation of principle laid down by the Superior Courts, It is admitted fact that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of the facts against the petitioners. The Privy Council has also laid down parameters to interfere in the findings of the Courts below while exercising power under section 115 of C.P.C, in "N. S. Vankatagiri Ayyangar and another Vs. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras" (PLD 1949 PC 26). The relevant observation is as follow:- "This is section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters (a) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the v case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of ' some provision of law, or with inaternal irregularity, that is, by committing some error or procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however, profoundly, from the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law."
The judgment of the Privy Council was considered and relied upon by this Court in "Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore Vs. Syed Khalid Mehmood" (1985 CLC 657).
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the judgment of this Court is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P. No.1146 of 1984 vide judgment dated 31.3.1985 which was re-affirmed and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore Vs. Ghulam Qadir" (PLD 1988 SC 625). The learned counsel of the petitioners failed to bring the case within the principle prescribed by Privy Council in the aforesaid judgment. The learned counsel of the petitioners failed to point out any piece of evidence, which was non-read misread by both the Courts below, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings of the facts of the Courts below, which have been given after proper appreciation of evidence on record.
In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.