' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---By filing this revision application the applicants have challenged the judgment, dated 20-2-2003 passed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Larkana dismissing Civil Appeal No,21 of 2002 preferred against the judgment, dated 22-1-2001 decreeing F.C. Suit No,12 of 1998 filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 against the applicants and the official respondents.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are that U.N. No,29 measuring 114-02 acres, in Deh Muhammadi Tanwari, Taluka Mirokhan which was government land, out of which an area of 94-2 acres and newly framed survey Nos.441 to 461 and 463 to 482 was granted to one hindu Pohumal Naraindas in the year, 1946-47 vide entry No,262, dated 15-10-1946 and entry No,263. The said Pohumal by way of statement before Mukhtiarkar Mirokhan sold the area to Sher Ali and Bakhshan in equal shares against consideration of Rs,15,000 and vide entry No,273, dated 23-10- 1947 the same was mutated in their names. The said Sher. Ali expired leaving behind the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 as his heirs and Bakhshan expired leaving behind the respondent No,4 as his legal heir and their names were mutated in the record of rights. The applicants in the year, 1987 forcibly encroached upon the land and the respondents Nos.1 to 4 by filing suit sought declaration with regard to the title of the above land, possession and mesne profits. The defendant No,2 contested the matter by filing his written statement and claimed that the area of 94-02 acre was the property of Pohumal and was being cultivated by Haji Muhammad Achar, father of applicants Nos.1 and 2 being its lawful purchaser from Ali Ahmed through attorney Hakimullahunder registered sale-deed and after the death of Muhammad Achar his legal heirs are in possession. He further submitted that after partition the same was allotted being an evacuee land and claimed that they are in possession since, 1968.
3. From the pleadings the following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether an area of 94-02 acres of S. Nos. 441 to 461 and 463 to 482 Deh Muhammadi Tanwari belonged to Sher Ali Jalbani the father of the plaintiff?
(2) Whether the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 encroached upon the land owned by plaintiffs illegally in the year, 1987?
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of possession of land in suit?
(4) Whether the father of defendants purchased the suit-land by registered sale-deed from claimant Ali Ahmed Qureshi?
(5) Whether suit is time barred?
(6) Whether suit is not maintainable under the law?
(7) What should the decree be?
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the findings of both the Courts below are not in accordance with the evidence available on record and the Courts below have committed gross illegality in accepting the oral sale made in favor of the predecessors of the respondents Nos.1 to 4 and ignoring the registered sale-deed in favor of the predecessors of the applicants.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 4 submits that the judgments of lower Courts do not suffer from any illegality and, irregularity and the jurisdiction,vested under them has been properly exercised.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that this is a dispute between private parties ad the official respondents have been unnecessarily joined in the proceedings.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. The learned trial Court after examining the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have succeeded to discharge the burden and the applicants failed to rebut the same. The most important witness was Tapedar Liaquat Ali, who in his deposition has produced entry No,177, dated 13-5-1969 and clearly deposed thatsaid entry was cancelled as the claim of Ahmed Ali was declared to be false. He further deposed that land in suit survey numbers are non- evacuee Muslim property. The applicants have failed to rebut the above piece of evidence and the same has gone un-rebutted and unchallenged. The basis on which the applicants are claiming title is not in existence. The appellate Court in its finding also held that this fact stands confirmed from the entries made in the revenue record by which entries in the name of applicants' father have been cancelled. The appellate Court further held that since very claim on the basis of which the land in suit was alienated in favor of the elders of the appellants/defendants stand cancelled and the entries and possession of the appellants/ defendants over the suit land became illegal.
The trial Court further held that respondents Nos.1 to 4 have succeeded to establish their title over the suit land through oral evidence as well as documents produced by them before the Trial Court.
9. I have perused the record made available before me and found that the above findings are based on the evidence available on the record and there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence and the same also do not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. Both the Courts below have based their findings on the evidence available on record and have assigned good reasoning for recording their finding of facts and law and have not committed any jurisdictional defect in reaching such conclusion.
10. The exercise of jurisdiction in revision is supervisory in nature and to correct the errors made by the subordinate Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction. The reappraisal and appreciation of evidence is not permissible nor can any conclusion, driven by lower Courts, be upset merely because on reappraisal and appreciation of evidence an opposite view is possible. It is now well settled that revisional jurisdiction can only be invoked in cases which involve error relating to exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts below or where there are material irregularity or illegality apparent on the face of the record.
11. The learned counsel for the applicant has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional defect, illegality and irregularity in the judgments of the lower Courts.
12. In view of the above, the revision application has no merits and I do not find any justification to interfere with the findings of the lower Courts.
13. The revision application is dismissed with no orders as to costs.