'SALIM KHAN, J.--- Umer Zada and Sahibzada sons of Kand instituted a Suit No,343/1 on 30-7-1999 for declaration etc. To the effect that Dost Muhammad Khan, father of Abdul Latif and Muhammad Ajmal defendants Nos.1 and 2, gave 1/4th share of the land in Khasra No,881-882 to Kand as ownership. For improving the remaining land, which was improved, and they built houses on the suit-land. The plaintiffs also challenged Mutation No,394 attested on 29-6-1999 in favour of Muhammad Sawab Khan, defendant No,3, by defendants Nos.1 and 2.
2. The suit of the petitioners was dismissed on 18-11-2003 but they did not produce the copy of the judgment in appeal in their case, in spite of the fact that copy of the grounds of appeal in that case has been produced. In Appeal No,84/13 of 2003, however, reference has been made to the dismissal of the suit of the petitioners. The copy of the judgment in Appeal No,84/13 is with respect to the appeal filed by the present petitioners against the judgment arid decree passed in favour of Muhammad Sawab Khan. This civil revision, therefore, is against the judgment and decree dated 8-1-2003 by the Aala Alaaqa Qazi Shangla and the judgment and decree in appeal by Zilla Qazi Shangla, dated 29-3-2006. This civil revision is not against any judgment and decree in appeal against the judgment and decree in the suit of the petitioners. It means that the judgment and decree in the suit of the petitioners, being not challenged, has attained finality.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the document in favour of the petitioners dated 21-6-1965 was properly produced but the same was not taken into consideration properly and the suit as: well as the appeal of the present petitioners were wrongly dismissed. He referred to the Pashto and Urdu versions of the said document. The exact English translation of a part of the said document is "I have given Bogaray 1/4th share of land to the frontal side out of the said land to Kand with my own consent. In lieu of the said Kand will dig the remaining land and will make it cultivable. Kand will also construct rooms (house) in that land. Till Kand remains on the said land, he will increase the Ijara properly and the land will remain with Kand on lease, and will not be given to anyone else". The above translation clearly includes the word "Bogaray" which means without payment of share of produce or lease amount. It was a traditional system of giving lands to tenants for improvements, by giving some part of the land free to encourage the tenants to improve the remaining land. The word "Bogaray" never means the transfer of the ownership of the land. The two conditions were that the remaining land would be improved and Kotha (rooms- houses) will be constructed over it.
4. Rehmatullah was produced by the plaintiffs as P.W. Who stated that the document in question was scribed when he was in Tehsil and he thumb-impressed that document. He stated that Dost Muhammad Khan, the predecessor of the defendants, had thumb-impressed the document in Tehsil. This witness accepted that other persons were available at that time but he did not know their names and the name of the scribe. He, however, did not know about the contents of the document. Umar Zada appeared as witness for himself and for Sahib Zada, the other plaintiff- petitioner., He stated that his father sold some of his property and used the said sale consideration on improvement of the suit property. He further stated that his father and he along with two other brothers improved the suit property. But he did not produce either the original document or any evidence of the sale of the property of the father of the plaintiff for spending the money on the improvement of the suit property. Umar Zada did not know anything about the delivery of the document in question to his father. He accepted that they were four brothers and one sister. But the two brothers and one sister have not been made parties to the suit and the two plaintiffs brothers claimed the whole share of 1/4th of the suit property for themselves. He accepted that the suit property was Banjar at the time of his statement. It clearly meant that it was not made cultivable or was left uncultivated. This witness further stated that he was not available at the time of settlement of the lands as he was at Quetta and remained there for three years. He did not know about the: time of settlement and did not count the period before the filing of his suit from the time of his return from Quetta.
5. Dursham Din was produced as the other witness of the document in question. He accepted that Kand had four sons but he did not remember the time of the death of Kand. He further stated that Umar Zada had instituted the suit and Umar Zada considered the whole suit property as his ownership. This witness stated that the document was scribed in Tehsil and no one else was present at the time of scribing the said document. When asked about identifying Neamatullah, he pointed to Muhammad Sawab defendant No,3 in the Court and mentioned him as Neamatullah. It means that he did not know Neamatullah, the other alleged witness of the documents, by face, and thus, denied the presence of Neamatullah at the time of alleged scribing of the document in question. The original document has not been produced and even the statements of the witnesses of the document are contradictory to each other.
6 . The circumstances of this case show that the suit-land was given to the predecessor of the petitioners on lease for improving it but he did not improve the same. The ownership of 1/4th of the suit property was never transferred to the father of the petitioners and he was a mere tenant-at- will. But he did not fully comply, except to construct rooms on the land, with the terms of the tenancy. The father of the petitioners was bound to construct rooms and improve the land. The petitioners claimed adverse title against the defendants. They, however could not prove their title to the suit property.
7. There is no defect in the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned original Court and the learned Appellate Court, and there is no merit in the present civil revision which is hereby dismissed along with C.M. No,833 of 2006 in limine.