' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.- Petitioner' suit for declaration and possession was allowed by the learned Civil Judge, vide judgment and decree, dated 22-10-1997; however, on appeal filed by the contesting respondent No,4, which was allowed on 21-7-1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that one Haji Muhammad Anwar Khan, was the owner of the land situated in Killa No,5/1, Square No,3, Chak No,240/GB, total measuring 8 Kanals 11 Marlas; out of the aforesaid land, he through registered sale-deed, dated 3-12-1973 registered on 2-1-1974 sold land measuring 1 Kanal in favour of the petitioners and one Nazir Ahmad to the extent of half share each of both the sets of the vendees, who according to the sale-deed, were also put in possession of the said land. Nazir Ahmad, vide registered sale-deed, dated 173-1980 sold his 10 Marlas in favour of the petitioners, over which the petitioners/plaintiffs claim to have raised construction; however, it is their case, that subsequently, the respondent No,4/Jan Muhammad, in collusion with the other defendants on the basis of some sale made in 1986 in his favour, by the attorney of Haji Anwar Khan from the same Killa, had dispossessed them from the property and demolished their constructions, resultantly, they sought the declaration of title and also the possession of the suit property. The suit was only contested by the present respondent No,4, whereas the other defendants had been produced ex parte. It is the case of the respondent No,4, that he had purchased the land measuring 1 Kanal 1 Marla from Younus, the attorney of Haji Anwar khan, through registered sale-deed, dated 26-7-1986 from the undivided Khata, but has been put in possession of the suit land, thus, he is the owner in possession thereof. Anyhow, in view of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the trial Court, was pleased to frame the following issues:--
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their words an conduct to bring this suit? OPD.
(3) Whether the suit is incorrectly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? If so, what is correct valuation of the suit and its effect? OPD.
(4) Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit plot on the basis of registered sale-deeds and mutations mentioned in the plaint? OPP
(5) Whether the defendants Nos.2 to 4 are in unlawful possession of the suit plot and the alleged power of attorney in favour of the defendant No,4 by Haji Anwar Khan is fictitious, bogus, illegal, against facts and void? OPP.
(6) Whether the registered sale-deed in favour of the defendant No,2, dated 18-1-1981 and the alleged registered sale by defendant No,2 in favour of defendant No,3, dated 23-3-1986 and the mutation Nos.492, 733 are based on fraud, impersonation, illegal, against facts, void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP.
(7) Relief.
' After the trial, the learned Civil Judge gave findings on issue No,4 as below:- '' Resultantly, the Court has come to this result that the plaintiff are owners of 1 Kanal in Killa No,5/1.
But they have failed to prove that, that Kanal is the same which is shown in red in the map attached with the plaint. This is decided accordingly."
' Issues Nos.5 and 6 were decided against the plaintiffs, and resultantly, the suit of the petitioners, was decreed to the extent of their right of ownership qua 1 Kanal of land in Kilal No,5/1, but the relief of possession was declined. Against the above, the petitioners preferred an appeal, and the learned Appellate Court, by setting aside the findings on the above three issues, and also by framing an additional issue, issue No,4-A, i.e, "whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for possession of plot measuring 1 Kanal shown in the plaint", remanded the matter to-the trial Court, for decision afresh, after enabling the parties to produce additional evidence, in the post remand proceedings, the learned trial Court, after allowing the parties, to produce further evidence, has re- decided the case through judgment and decree dated 22-10-1997 according to which the suit of the petitioners, was allowed, finding them to be the owners of the suit land, which is a specific portion of Killa No,5/1, and was purchased by them through the sale-deed, dated 2-1-974 from Muhammad Anwar and further sale-deed, dated 11-3-1980 in their . Favour by the co-owner Nazir Ahmad.
3. The above judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, when assailed in appeal, has been set aside and the learned Appellate Court, has come to the conclusion that the sale-deed, dated 2-1- 1974 in favour of the petitioners and Nazir Ahmad, only reveals that the area, of the plot sold, is 9 x 20 Karams situated towards the main road to Lahore; the other details and description, as to where the said 1 Kanal is exactly situate, is missing. It is further held by the Court, that the mutations on the basis of the sale-deeds in favour of the petitioners, do not prove, that any Tatima has been carved out for the specific portion of Killa No,5/1, which the petitioners claim to have purchased from the original owner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon Exh.P.8., the sale-deed executed by the original owner of the property namely Haji Anwar Khan, read with Exh.D.2, the Aks Shajrah, produced by the respondent No,4, has argued, that the exact description of the property, which the petitioners have purchased, stands fully proved and established. It is clearly mentioned in the sale- deed, that the area sold is 20 Karams towards north south side, whereas 9 Karams on the east- west of the Lahore Road. Thus, there is no ambiguity or confusion about the location of the suit property. It is also argued, the learned Appellate Court, for invalid and erroneous reasons has discarded the report of the local commission appointed by the learned trial Court, which otherwise clearly substantiates the case of the petitioners qua the suit land, when no objections to the report were even filed by the respondent,
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent has argued, that according to the Exh.D.2, Aks Shajrah, the suit land is situated at a distance of about 5 Karams of the Lahore Road, and therefore, the statement in Exh.P.8. About its local adjustment to the Lahore Road is proved to be patently erroneous, resultantly, the petitioners would be deemed to have not purchased any specific part of Killa No,8, rather a share in the said Killa, and therefore, until and unless, the land in partitioned, the petitioners cannot claim the possession of the specific portion, held by the respondent as a co- sharer of the undivided property.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As far as the oral evidence is concerned, the learned Appellate Court has failed to consider the statements of the witnesses produced by the petitioners, who in unequivocal terms have stated, that it is the suit land, which was purchased by the petitioners along with Nazir Ahmad from Haji Anwar Khan, and the vendees were also put in possession of the said land, where they had raised the construction, but subsequently, were illegally dispossessed by the respondent. There is no significant cross-examination to these statements. Anyhow, leaving aside the oral testimonies, the most mportant and basic documentary evidence on the record is Exh.P.8; this is the sale, which had been executed by Haji Anwar Khan in favour of the petitioner and Nazir Ahmad. The property sold to the vendees has been completely and fully described in the deed. According to the contents of this deed, the petitioners along with Nazir had purchased the suit land, which is abutting towards the Lahore Road, and is 20 Karams towards north-south, and 9 Karams on the east-west, this exactly is 1 Kanal of land, therefore, when the original owner himself has sold the specific portion of Killa No,5/1, the petitioners became the owners of the specific suit land, and thus, it is erroneous to conclude on the part of the Court of Appeal but they have purchased the share in the Killa. Therefore, notwithstanding that any Tatima was carved out by the revenue authorities or the mutations have not described the land by metes and bounds, yet the sale-deed being the title document would prevail over the revenue record, which deed clearly describes the location of the land sold to the petitioners, coupled with the , document Exh.D.2, produced by the respondent No,4, it is clear that the property in dispute is the one which is located towards the main Lahore Road and for which the petitioners brought the suit for possession. I fail to understand as to on what basis and material before the Court, the learned Judge has concluded, that the land in question, does not abut the Lahore road and it is at a distance of 5 Karams therefrom. Learned counsel for the respondent, when confronted, to justify this findings, has not been able to support the judgment in this behalf.
7. In the light of above, as there is a clear misinterpretation of the Exh.P.8 by the Court of Appeal, which is the admitted document between the parties and is the basic title document of the petitioners and fully describes the suit property, therefore, the findings of the Court cannot be sustained. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and. By upholding the judgment of the learned trial Court the suit of the petitioners stands decreed in their favour.
Accordingly this revision is allowed. No order as to costs,