1. ' KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.---This application has become infructuous and as such is disposed of. 1 & 2. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings. The plaintiff Hyder Ali in the civil suit had sought following relief from the Court:-- ' This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:--
(1) Declare that plaintiff is owner of property bearing C.S. No.161 of Ward B, Shandadkot measuring area 165-3 sq. Years.
(2) Direct the defendants Nos.1 to 5 to vacate the suit property bearing C.S. No.161 of Ward B, Shandadkot and put the plaintiff in its vacant possession.
(3) Direct the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 to pay compensation of the suit property at Rs.1000 per month from August, 1996 till the date of delivery of vacant possession of suit property to plaintiff.
(4) Restrain the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 from raising any kind of construction work over suit property by themselves directly or through other agency.
(5) Award costs of this suit.
(6) Any other relief whatever this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper be awarded.
2. ' The Court upon pleadings had framed following issues:--
(1) Whether plaintiff is owner of property in suit?
(2) Whether Abdullah purchased house in suit and is owner of property in suit?
(3) Whether defendants Nos.1-A to 1-I and 2 are legally bound to vacate the suit property and put the plaintiff in its possession?
(4) Whether Muhammad Memon expired prior to 13-7-1996, if so, its effect?
(5) Whether defendants Nos. 1-A to 1-I and 2 to 6 are bound to pay compensation for use and occupation of house in suit at Rs.1000 per month from August, 1996 till delivery of possession of plaintiff?
(6) Whether the suit is time-barred?
(7) Whether suit is barred by law?
(8) Whether suit is not maintainable according to law?
(9) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief prayed for?
(10) What should the decree be?
3. ' Court had replied issue No.1 in affirmative, issue No.2 in negative, issue No.3 in affirmative, issue No.4 in negative, issue No.5 in affirmative, issue Nos.6, 7 and 8 in negative, issue No.9 in affirmative and suit was decreed by judgment, dated 28-3-2001. The concluding paragraph of the judgment is as under:-- "Issue No.10.
4. ' For the reasons discussed above in issues Nos. 1 to 9 and result thereof, it is clear that the plaintiff is owner of the suit property who is entitled for its possession and compensation as claimed by him. Under these circumstance the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed with no orders as to costs."
5. ' Being aggrieved by this judgment, the present applicants preferred Civil Appeal No.35 of 2001 in the District Court, which was transferred to the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Larkana, who vide his judgment, dated 7-1-2005 upheld the judgment of the trial Court and the relevant portion of his judgment is reproduced hereunder:-- "The appellants/defendants have failed to produce any documentary proof on record to establish their right of ownership over the disputed property but the respondents/ plaintiffs produced the sufficient documentary evidence about their right of ownership of dispute property as the respondents/ plaintiffs had purchased the disputed property from one Haji Muhammad Memon.
6. The same property was allotted by Settlement Department being evacuee property to Haji Muhammad Memon after the purchase of disputed property through registered documents by respondent Hyder Ali and the same was transferred in the name of respondents in C.S. Record.
7. ' Appellants/defendants also failed to establish as statutory tenants of property in question through the evidence nor was any indication available about his being in person liable to fall within the purview of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958). Therefore, the suit of respondent/plaintiff was maintainable and was rightly entertained and decided by the learned trial Court within the their jurisdiction. Therefore, the plea taken by the counsel for appellant before this appellate Court about the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under section 30 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), which is misconceived and the facts and circumstances of above referred case-law by the counsel for appellants are not applicable with the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. ' So far the possession of defendants Nos.1-A to 1-I and 2 to 6 is concerned, the same is admitted position as mentioned above the appellants/defendants have failed to established their right, title over the property in dispute, therefore, the appellants/defendants are liable to vacate the property in dispute. Furthermore, the perusal of record goes to show that the appellants/defendants have not brought any document on record to prove the death of Haji Muhammad Memon. Prior to 13-7- 1996, the date of registration of sale-deed in favour of respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, it is presumed that at the time of registration of the sale-deed Haji Muhammad Memon was alive.
9. Since the ownership of the respondent/plaintiff has been proved as discussed supra, therefore, it is proved that the suit I within time and maintainable and the respondent/plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed.
10. ' In view of my above observation I find that the learned trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff in accordance with law and the same needs no interference. The case-law cited at the bar is not applicable with the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. Consequently the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs."
12. ' I have heard the learned counsel for respondent and have perused the memo. Of revision application.
13. ' The learned counsel advocate for the applicants/petitioners in the memo. Of revision has taken the grounds that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are bad in law and are anonymous on facts and are liable to be dismissed. It is mentioned in the memo. Of revision that the findings on the issues decided against the petitioners are suffering from patent illegalities, material irregularities and lack of jurisdiction, as both the learned Courts have not acted in accordance with law or the principles of judicial procedure in decreeing the suit. It is contended in the memo. Of revision that both the Courts below have seriously erred in holding that the plaintiff/respondent and his predecessor-in-interest Haji Muhammad Memon were owners of the suit property and the petitioners had no right or title in it and they were illegal and unauthorized possession and were liable to hand over its vacant possession to the respondents.
14. This is revision application and it is settled law that facts cannot be appreciated in the revisional jurisdiction unless the findings are based on misreading or on-reading of evidence, or judgment is fanciful and is against the record. In present case, both the Courts below have given findings on facts and I do not see any miscarriage of justice in the judgments passed by the Courts below and as such I am not inclined to reverse the concurrent findings of the Courts below. This civil revision application No.28 of 2005 has no merits and the same is dismissed along with listed application, with no order as to costs.