Ch. ljaz Ahmed, J.--The appellants/petitioners filed Civil Petition No. 313 of 2002 against the judgment dated 7.12.2001 of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench wherein the learned High Court had accepted the revision petition filed by the respondents against the appellants and set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restored the judgment of the trial Court. Leave was granted vide order dated 6.2.2003 for reappraisal of evidence both oral and documentary placed on the file. Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge Jhelum. The contents of plaint reveal that petitioners are owners in possession of land in question measuring 184 kanals, 11 marlas according to register Haqdaran-e-Zamin for the year 1980-81 since their forefathers, and were cultivated 100 kanals out of the suit land. Rest of the land was used by them for the purpose of their cattles.
Respondents/defendants intended to take illegal possession of the land in question which they had no right to do so. Respondents/defendants filed written statement controverting the allegations leveled in the plaint. The trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence, decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners to the extent of 56 kanals and dismissed the suit regarding 128 kanals vide judgment dated 17.1.1989. Petitioners being aggrieved filed appeal in the Court of Addl. District Judge Jhelum who decreed the suit qua whole land in question measuring 184 kanals, 11 marlas. Respondents being aggrieved filed Civil Revision No. 636 of 1994 in the Lahore High Court which was accepted vide judgment dated 7.12.2002 wherein judgment of the First Appellate Court was set aside and judgment of trial was restored.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned High Court had erred in law to ignore the old entries in revenue records which attained the presumptions of truth by passage of time. The First Appellate Court had decided the cases within the parameters of the pleadings of the parties whereas the learned High Court had reversed the judgment of the First Appellate Court on the facts/evidence beyond the pleadings which could not be looked into under the law. He further maintains that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction whatsoever to change the long standing entries with regard to the rights of the parties as the parties had to approach the Civil Court for determination of their title in view of long standing entries in the revenue record. The learned First Appellate Court had reversed the finding of the trial Court with cogent reasons keeping in view the documentary evidence and had given due weight to the documentary evidence as compared to the oral evidence.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment vehemently.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the judgment of the trial Court to the extent of its finding on Issue No. 1 after proper appreciation of evidence:-- 'The only independent witness available on the file is the report of the Gardawar and other proceedings conducted by the revenue authorities regarding the correction of the entries in the revenue record. According to the Ex: D-3 the report of the Girdawar the plaintiffs are only in possession of 56 kanals and their entry in the revenue record about the total 'suit land is incorrect.
Therefore, I place my reliance on the report of the Girdawar who visited the spot conducted the inquiry there in nothing on the file which shows any special entries of the Girdawar in favour of the defendants and any ill-will spite or eninity against the plaintiffs. He is a revenue official and is independent and impartial witness. Therefore, I hold that plaintiffs are only owner in possession of 56 kanals out of 184 kanal and 11 marlas as Hissadar in Shamlat Deh and the issue is decided accordingly'.
5. The First Appellate Court reversed the same on the ground that the oral evidence could not take place the status of documentary evidence. The relevant operative part of the judgment of the First Appellate Court is reproduced hereunder:- "I failed to understand, as to when, the plaintiffs/appellants were owner in Shamlat and they were in possession according to revenue record up to 1980/81 when the Girdawar has in examination in chief deposed that Sanghar Khan was in occupation of the suit land measuring 128 kanals 11 marlas. This statement of the Girdawar in view of documentary evidence discussed above has no validity",
6. The learned High Court had reversed the finding of First Appellate Court after proper appreciation of evidence as is evident from para 7 of the impugned judgment which is also reproduced hereunder:-- "The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is not confidence inspiring. The contention of these witnesses that they are cultivating almost 100 kanals of suit land is belied their own documents, wherein land measuring 128 kanals is shown as Ghair Mumkim Khundar. According to khasra Gardawari placed on the record only 56 kanals 11 marlas was shown to be cultivated by the respondents. On the other hand, the case of the petitioners was supported by the statement of DW-1 Muhammad Shafi Naib Office Qanungo, Muhammad Nazeer Gardawar DW-2, Allah Ditta DW.3 and Muhmmad Saddique one of the petitioner as DW-4. The Naib Office Qanungo produced the file of the proceedings conducted by the revenue depth on the application of Sagar Khan. Muhammad Nazir, Gardawar, conducted the investigation at the spot and found that Muhammad Hussain one of the respondent was in possession of 56 kanals, whereas Saghar Khan was in possession of 128 kanals 11 marlas.
This DW further stated that only 56 kanals out of the suit land was cultivated by the respondent while the rest of the land was barren. From a perusal of the oral and the documentary evidence on the record the finding of the learned appellate Court-that the respondents were in possession of the entire 148 kanals 11 marlas and were cultivating about 100 kanals of the same is not borne out from any material on the record. The petitioners Allah Ditta etc. did not challenge the finding of the trial Court recorded in its judgment and decree dated 17.1.1989 and shall be bound by the same.
However this civil revision is liable to succeed in respect of the remaining 128 kanals which have been proved on the record to be not in possession of the respondents. Resultantly, this civil revision is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 3.11.1994 of the learned appellate Court is set aside and decree dated 17.1.1989 of the trial Court is restored. Parties to bear their own costs. "
7. In case the findings of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court are put in a juxta position, then it is crystal clear that the learned First Appellate Court had reversed the findings of the trial Court without adverting to the reasoning of the trial Court. The First Appellate Court had decided the appeal and reversed the finding of the trial Court in violation of law laid down by this Court in Madan Gopal's case (PLD 1969 SC 617). The relevant observation is as follows:- "It seems clear to us that this is a case where. the First Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the trial Judge regarding the status of Tulsidas without paying any heed to the reasoning given by the first Court. It has also wrongly discounted a very fundamental piece of evidence in the case, namely, the admission of Tulsidas himself in the partition suit, already referred to above. The High Court was, therefore, quite right in disagreeing with the lower appellate Court and in reversing its finding in second appeal and in restoring that of the first Court as regards the status of Tulsidas as a sub-tenant".
8. It is a settled proposition of law that when the appellate Court had decided the case in violation of law laid down by this Court, then it is termed as material irregularity or illegality within the meaning of Section 115 of CPC as law laid down by this Court in Shaukat Nawaz's case (1988 SCM R 851). The trial Court had decided the case in view of the report of Gardawar who had visited the spot and also after perusing the inquiry file. It is pertinent to mention here that DW2 Muhammad Nazir was a witness of the appellants/defendants and this fact was not considered in its true perspective by the First Appellate Court and infact it was totally mis read and non-read the evidence of DW2 which was not properly scrutinized and re-examined in its true perspective. All the contentions which are raised before us had already been raised before the trial Court by the learned counsel for the appellants which were rejected after application of mind with cogent reasons which were reversed by the First Appellate Court without proper application of mind and without proper reasons, therefore, the judgment of the First Appellate Court was not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in Gouranga Mohan Sikdar's case (PLD 1970 SC 158) and Mollah Ejahar Ali's case (PLD 1970 SC 173).
9. The respondents had placed on record documents relating to the year 1996-97 through supplementary paper book. It is a settled law that record of later year is to be preferred. See Mt. Alo and others vs. Sher and others (AIR 1927 Lah. 607). This fact alone is sufficient to discard the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is pertinent to mention here that learned trial Court had decided the case against the appellants on the documents which were produced by the appellants/defendants before the trial Court. It is a settled principle of law that document having been placed on record by the appellants themselves was admissible is evidence and could .be looked into by the Court for seeing through the matter. The learned trial Court was justified to take into consideration report of Gardawar alongwith complete file. The judgments of the learned trial Court and the learned High Court are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Khuda Yar's case (PLD 1975 SC 678). This Court does not, normally, interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below (the High Court and the trial Court) while exercising power under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
10.In view of what has been discussed above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned High Court and this appeal has no merit which is dismissed