' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 13-8-1988 the respondents filed a suit against the appellants.
According to the plaint, the respondents were owners of land measuring 3 Kanals, 10 Marlas, described in para-1 of the plaint, while the appellants were, the owners of land measuring 3 Kanals, 11 Marlas described in para-2 of the plaint. The respondents took possession of the said land of the appellants under an exchange and similarly the appellants took possession of the land of the respondents in the year 1964. However, mutations could not be attested after the exchange. The respondents have raised seven Pacca shops and also established an Orchard and a Nursery on the suit-land. The appellants have, however, started making attempts to interfere with their possession. They accordingly sought a declaration that they are in possession of the suit-land under an exchange and an injunction restraining the appellants, from interfering with their possession. In the written statement, the appellants denied the factum of any exchange. It was further stated that the shops have been constructed by them but the tenants have colluded with Ibrahim plaintiff. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 22-6-1995. A first appeal filed by the respondents was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Okara, on 6-7-1999 who decreed their suit.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that there is no evidence of a valid exchange on record and the mere fact that the parties are in possession of each other's land since long would not give rise to the presumption of an exchange.. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, with reference to the evidence On the record.
3. I have gone through the trial court records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have already narrated above the respective pleadings. I may note here that the suit-land (i.e. The land of the appellants) measures 3 Kanals 11 Marlas and is comprised in Khasras No.16/4 and 117/1 of Square No.26. Ex.P:4 is the earliest Revenue Record for the year 1945-46 and the land is recorded to be in possession of the respondents with the following note in the Laghan column:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' It is the land of the appellants which is comprised in Khasra No.18/3. Ex.P.1 is Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1964-65 and it is the appellants who are recorded to be in possession of Khasra No.18/3 measures 3 Kanals, 10 Marlas again with the same entry in the column of Laghan. Khasra Girdawaris Exs.P.3 and P.5 also depict the same pictures and so is the case with Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1988-89 (Ex.P.5/2)
4. There is no manner of doubt in my mind and even the learned counsel for the appellants concedes that the parties are in possession of each other's land since the last more than 50 years.
Whereas the respondents have taken a version for the said phenomena there is no explanation in the written statement for the same.
5. So far as the oral evidence is concerned, Patwaris Muhammad Younas P.W.2 and Muhammad Saleem I have appeared with records to state that the parties are in possession of each other's land claimed to be so under an exchange. Ghulam Hassan P.W.7 aged 78 years who ( had been a member of the Union Council and had supported the plea of the respondents while Muhammad Ibrahim one of the respondents has appeared as P.W.6 to state his case in accordance with the plaint. On the other hand, Muhammad Yaqoob aged 60 years has appeared as D.W.2 for the appellants and has stated in his very examination-in-chief that the parties had exchanged the possession of their lands with each other. In his cross-examination, he stated that he is married to a sister of some of the appellants. He admitted that exchange took place 20/25 years ago. He admitted that the shops stand constructed on the suit-land and whereas earlier Haq Nawaz used to receive the rent. Now it is being received by Ibrahim who has also got the electric connection. He further admitted that Ibrahim resides near the said shops. He also gave the details that in the exchange Ibrahim gave 3 Kanals and 10 Marlas while Haq Nawaz gave 3 Kanals, 10 Marlas.
6. Haq Nawaz appellant himself appeared as D.W.4 and stated in his examination-in-chief that the parties had temporarily exchanged their respective lands. He stated in the examination-in-chief D that the shops were constructed by him but in his cross-examination, he was unable to tell the name of even a single tenant whereas admittedly the rent is being received by the respondent party.
7. Having, thus, examined the records, it cannot be said that the learned Additional District Judge while passing the impugned judgment and decree has misread on tailed to read the evidence. To my mind, E the conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge is in consonance with the evidence on record. The R.S.A. Accordingly is dismissed but without any orders as to costs.
8. The records of the learned trial court be remitted back immediately.