' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- On 9-3-2001 the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent. In the plaint, it was stated that the suit property mentioned in para-1 of the plaint was purchased by Sh.
Fazal Elahi from Muhammad Inayat and Rehmat Ullah vide registered sale-deed dated 20-7-1954.
On the death of Sh. Fazal Elahi, the property devolved upon his widow Mst. Taj Bibi, Muhammad Bashir brother, Mst. Zubaida Bibi, Mst. Fatima Bibi and Mst. Zuhra Bibi sisters. The share of the said ladies comes to 7/10 while that of Muhammad Bashir comes to 3/10. He purchased the said 7/10 share from the said ladies vide registered sale-deed dated 16-9-1996 while the respondent purchased 3/10 share of the said Muhammad Bashir vide registered sale-deed dated 29-9-1996.
He accordingly claimed to be an owner of 7/10 share in the said property and prayed for separate possession by partition. The plea taken by the respondent in his written statement was that the said ladies had sold a specific portion i.e. The house to the petitioner while the said Muhammad Bashir sold his specific share i.e. a shop to the respondent and this is evident upon a reading of the said sale-deeds. According to him, the property was not joint between the parties. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court passed a preliminary decree on 3-7-2003. A first appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, on 11-11-2003 who dismissed the suit of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ownership of the parties is relatable to the original sale-deed and the shares inherited by the heirs of Fazal Elahi and as such the evidence on record has been misread. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, draws my attention to the said sale-deeds to urge that the said ladies had sold a specific portion i.e. The house while Muhammad Bashir had sold the shop to his client and the original owners had not questioned any of the said documents.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Admittedly, the property belonged to Fazal Elahi and devolved upon the said heirs as stated above. In the first instance, the sale-deed Exh.P.5 was executed in favour of the petitioner by the said ladies on 16-9-1996. The sale-deed clearly narrates that a house described therein is being sold to the petitioner and has been delivered to him. It is not at all mentioned therein that any share in the property is being sold. A few days thereafter on 29-9-1996 the said Muhammad Bashir executed the sale-deed Exh.P.4 in favour of the respondent and it clearly narrates that the shop measuring 11 feet 6" 10 Feet 8" as described therein is being sold and delivered. Admittedly, both the vendees were delivered possession and are continuing in possession accordingly. The learned ADJ also has very correctly taken note of the fact that both the sale- deeds were executed , within a period of 10 days. The petitioner paid Rs.50,000 as consideration whereas the respondent paid Rs.60,000 as consideration. The learned ADJ has very correctly drawn the inference that the larger share being residential and the smaller share being a commercial shop were valued accordingly.
4. Upon a reading of the said admitted documents, the property does not' at all appear to be joint.
No ground has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment and decree of the learned ADJ, Gujranwala. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed but without any orders as to costs.