' MUHAMMAD MAZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Instant civil revision assailed appellant judgment/decree, dated 27-2-1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, whereby appeal filed by the respondents was accepted and by setting aside judgment/decree, dated 11-10-1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge, case was remanded for its decision after getting report from the local Commissioner preferably Tehsildar Mall of Jhang Sadar regarding demarcation of the disputed plots.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that both the parties filed their distinct suits, one for declaration with permanent injunction and the other for possession. Petitioners in their suit for declaration with permanent injunction claimed that land beneath the disputed house was part of Khata No,504 measuring 178 Kanals and 9 Marlas situated in Mouza Kalowaia Sial, District Jhang, owned by them.
According to them, out of this land, Muhammad son of Chandi predecessor-in-interest of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in their suit was owner of 290/3580 share measuring 14 Kanals, 10 Marlas.
They further pleaded that land forming part of Khata No,504 was situated on both the sides of Gojra Road between Jhang Sadar and Satellite Town and thus after creation of this country, it had become buildings site, suitable for residential colonies. They claimed that co-sharers, after family partition, reserved their respective plots and started selling the same from the joint Khata as per their needs. They further averred that Muhammad son of Chandi, being owner in possession of the suit-land sold it to them for a consideration of Rs,1,000 vide registered sale-deed, dated 5-11-1975 and delivered possession, where they raised Pakka constructions with cost of Rs,20,000 and have permanent abode. Plaint of the petitioners further revealed that suit property was included within Municipal Limits of Jhang Magiana and their houses were constructed under the sanctioned site plans by the Municipality concerned. Petitioners also referred to previous litigation between Masjid Taqwa and Aziz Mukhtar Ahmed etc. And to some criminal litigation, which ended in their favour.
3. Respondent No,1 Madrassa Faizul-Quranalso filed a suit for possession of the suit-land claiming that it was owned by Muhammad son of Chandi, who sold the same along with some other land to one Nazir Ahmed vide registered sale-deed, dated 27-8-1975. Nazir Ahmed further alienated the same to Amir Khan vide Mutation No,1753, dated 13-10-1977, who on his turn, alienated it to Muhammad Siddique vide Mutation No,1847, dated 14-3-1978. Madrassa Faiz-ul-Quran further pleaded in its plaint that Muhammad Siddique being Omer in possession of the disputed land sold the same to it through sale-deed, dated 24-2-1979 on the basis of which Mutation No,2823 was sanctioned on 27-6-1983. It was also averred by respondent No,1 that after purchase of plot boundary wall was raised along with construction of a house for residence of its students. It was emphasized that petitioners purchased some other land out of the same Khata (Khata No,504) but under the garb of sale in their favour, they forcibly took over possession of its property in spite of the fact that they failed in the revenue hierarchy.
4. Both the suits by the parties were contested by the defendants therein by filing their respective written statements. Learned Civil Judge, seized of both the suits, after consolidation of those and framing of issues, put them to the trial, at the conclusion of which suit of the petitioners for declaration with permanent injunction was decreed and the other for possession filed by respondent No,1 was dismissed, vide judgment/decree, dated 11-10-1995.
5. Respondent No,1 being aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, where it succeeded as the same was accepted and case was remanded to the trial Court as noted above, vide appellate judgment/decree, dated 27-2-1999.
Petitioners thereafter filed instant revision petition against the remand of the case and respondents in response to notice by this Court appeared and were represented through their counsel.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undeniably, land purchased by both the parties falls within the same Khata No,504, hence dispute between them is about identification of their respective land, which cannot be resolved without resort to .Demarcation proceedings. Petitioners allegedly purchased 5 Marlas from Muhammad son of Chandi out of Khata No,504 vide registered sale-deed Exh.P.2 without mentioning any specific khasra number. Likewise, registered sale-deed, dated 27-8-1975 Exh.P.15, which is prior in time as compared to Exh.P.2, Muhammad son of Chandi along with one Mapal son of Bahla sold land measuring 10 Marlas in favour of Nazir Ahmed son of Sultan Ahmed. The said owners further alienated 4 Marlas from Khata No,504 with Khasra No,37/14/18 out of total area measuring 1 Kanal, 14 Marlas equivalent to 470/3580 share. As per Fard Intekhab prepared by Abdul Rehman Patwari, dated 18-8-1975 sale-deed Exh.P.2 in favour of the petitioners did not tally with the area left in the name of the owners in Khata in question. Hotly contested rival claims of the parties clearly depict that both of them claim ownership over one piece of land purchased by them through two different sale-deeds. Trial Court had not opted to decide as to whether land sold through Exh.P.2 was within entitlement or it was not the same as mentioned in Exh.P.15, being oblivious of vested jurisdiction under Order XXVI, rules, 9/10, C.P.C. Dispute between the parties cannot be put to rest on the basis of their respective sale-deeds, revenue record produced by them or site plans already on the file. In the given circumstances of this case, the only course open for just/fair decision between the parties, demarcation of both the plots purchased by the parties at the site was inevitable, which was correctly directed to be adopted by the Appellate Court, who committed no illegality/irregularity amendable to revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
7. For the reasons noted above, instant revision petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed, but in view of longstanding litigation between the parties, trial Court is directed to conclude the proceedings by complying with the appellate judgment, within a period of four months after getting demarcation report from some revenue expert of its choice. There will be no order as to costs.