JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J. --- This revision petition impugns the concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court dated 25.3.2005 and of the learned lower Appellate Court dated 14.6 2005 whereby a declaratory suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed.
2. The facts of this case are straightforward. The petitioners/plaintiffs claim that they became owners of Ihata No 23 (Nisaf) Shumali in Chak No. 136/SB, Tehsil Silanwali, under the Settlement Scheme No. VII, because they had migrated from the area now forming part of India and had occupied this Ihata. According to them, by virtue of their possession of the disputed property, title came to vest in them under the aforesaid scheme. On this basis the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a declaratory suit and also claimed permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants.
3. The case of the defendants was that the Suit Ihata was owned by Groodat Singh and Harnam Singh, who also owned agricultural land in the chak. According to the respondents, through a sale- deed dated 18.4.1931, the agricultural land as well as the Ihata in dispute were sold to their predecessor-in-interest by the aforesaid Groodat Singh and Harnam Singh.
4. It does appear from the sale-deed (Ex.D-3) dated 18.4.1931 that the disputed Ihata was also sold to the respondents by Groodat Singh. However, from Mutation No. 87 (Ex.D-2) it is evident that the revenue record did not reflect the sale until the Jamabandi for the year 1955-56 on the basis of the said mutation which was sanctioned on 1.3.1948.
5. In the plaint it has been asserted that the petitioners remained in possession of the disputed Ihata from 1947 as absolute owners of the same and without any interference in their possession by the respondents. In 1995 through Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3 the Ihata in dispute was allotted to the petitioners. These two documents are in. The nature of certificates relating to the and in question.
6. On the above basis, it was submitted that even if it is conceded, for the sake of argument. That the title in the disputed Ihata was conveyed by Groodat Singh in favour of the respondents vide sale-deed (Ex. D-3), the petitioners became owners of the said Ihata having acquired prescriptive title in the same. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner prescriptive title stood matured after their uninterrupted and overset possession of the disputed property as owners for a period exceeding 12 years. It was, therefore, argued that notwithstanding conveyance of title in favour of the respondents, as per sale-deed (Ex.D-3), the petitioners were entitled to the declaration of title sought by. Them.
7. Considering the above submissions, I am not in any doubt that title in the suit property came to vest in the respondents on account of the sale-deed (Exh.D-3). The only question, therefore, which remains to be decided, is if the prescriptive title of the petitioners had matured on account of adverse possession. For this purpose it has to be seen if the petitioners had come to occupy the disputed property in 1947 as alleged by them. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses with the assistance of both learned counsel. The learned Courts below have appraised the said evidence and have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not been able to prove that they had entered into possession of the suit property in 1947. The testimony of Ahmad Khan (DW-2) is relevant and credible.. He is an independent witness and has been rightly believed by the learned Courts below in proof of the fact that the respondents were in occupation of the suit property at. The material and had also. Installed grain grinding equipment in the same. It is also of significance that Ihata No. 23, even, according to the PWs, was in two portions viz. Nisaf shumali which is the suit property and nisaf janubi. The portion falling in nisaf janubi was occupied by the petitioners but not nisaf shumali . The Courts below had valid bases for concluding that the disputed property was in the occupation of the respondents at the time of partition and subsequent thereto:
8. The aforesaid conclusion is also supported by the sale-deed (Exh.D-3). The fact that the suit property had been sold by Gurudat Singh and Harnam Singh to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents alongwith agricultural land owned by them, has been duly proved. It would be natural to infer that having purchased the agricultral land and the disputed property the predecessor-. In- interest of the respondents took possession of the same and also retained such possession. The petitioners attempted to show that there was some litigation between the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and the evacuee owners relating to the suit property. There are, however, no particulars or copies of such litigation exhibited on record to substantiate this assertion.
9. In the above circumstances, I find that there was adequate material available on the record to justify the decrees of the learned Courts below. The impugned decrees are, therefOre, unexceptionable. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity in the impugned judgment which would justify interference therein while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition which is, therefore; dismissed with costs. Civil .