MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- On 15-9-1999, respondent No:l filed a suit against the appellants and respondent No.2. In the plaint it was stated that he is owner of the suit property described in the plaint and he had acquired the same vide a Court decree- dated 22-10-1989. Appellant No.l is his wife and appellant No.2 and respondent No.2 are his sons, who are occupying the suit house as his licensees. He revoked the licence on 31-8-1999 and called upon them to vacate the suit house.
They denied. He accordingly sought a decree for possession as also payment of mesne profit at the rate of Rs.3,000 per month for use and occupation of the house.
2. On 3-11-1999 appellant No.l filed a suit against the respondents as well as appellant No.2. In the plaint she stated that she was married to respondent No.l, 40 years ago and has born him four sons and a daughter. During the continuation of marriage he transferred the suit house to her by way of gift in lieu of dower. Later on the relationship between the spouses became strained. Two sons and a daughter left the house along with their father while two sons are living with her. - She accordingly sought a declaration that she is owner in possession of the suit house. Respondent No.l in his written statement denied the said allegation. According to him a sum of Rs.2,000 was fixed as dower, which was paid and the date of marriage was stated to be 20-10-1960. The appellant in response to said suit filed by the respondent took the position as stated in his plaint. Issues were framed out of pleading of parties in both the suits. Evidence of parties was recorded. Vide judgment and decree dated 23-6-2006 the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent No.l, but dismissed the. Suit filed by appellant No.l. First appeals filed by the appellants were heard together by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, who dismissed the same on 3-2- 2007.
3. The learned counsel for contesting respondent No.l has put in appearance in response to notice in the stay matter. Records are available. The matter is being decided as a Pakka case as the learned counsel are prepared with their arguments.
4. The learned counsel for appellants contends that the gift in lieu of dower qua the suit house was duly proved on record, but both the learned Courts below have misread the evidence on record.
5. The learned counsel for contesting respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgments and decree.
6. I have gone through records of , learned Lower Court with the assistance of the learned counsel for parties: I have already reproduced above in some details the material contents of pleading of the parties. It was the case of appellant No.l that the house was transferred to him by respondent No.l in lieu of her dower. Habib Ahmad Khan is P.W.1. He stated that the appellant lady is owner in possession of the house,r which was given to her in lieu of dower. In cross-examination he stated that he did not participate in the marriage of the parties. He did not know as to whether any dower was fixed at the time of marriage.' Neither he knew as to what was the quantum of dower nor as to whether. It was prompt of deferred. He could not state the date, month or year in which the house was given in lieu'of dower. The appellant lady herself appeared as P.W.3 and as against the plea taken in the plaint she proceeded to state that when she was married to the respondent he used to sell goods on cart. Thereafter, he started manufacturing Ink and she used to help him. After two years of her. Marriage she shifted in the suit house, where respondent started manufacturing slates. She used to operate eight machines. Then she. Abruptly stated that the. House was given to her 16 years ago in lieu of dower. She further stated that her husband declared that she had served him for 35 years and he is enhancing her dower and giving her the house in lieu thereof. In her cross-examination she stated that her dower was recorded in Nikahnama as 8 Tolas gold and Rs.20,000. Respondent No.l appeared as D.W.l and reiterated denial.
Having read the said evidence on record I find no misreading or non-reading thereof by the learned Courts below while holding that the appellant/lady has failed to prove the plea taken in the plaint- qua ownership of the house. I may note that both the learned Courts have disallowed the claim of mesne profit. The. R.S.A. Is Dismissed without any orders as to costs. The records be returned hack immediately. The appellants are. Given two months time to vacate th,e suit house.
The time shall start from today.