AGHA RAFIQ AHMED KHAN, J.--- This common Judgment will dispose of the above revision applications as the parties, facts and the cause of action are same.
2. Brief facts leading to these revision applications are that respondent No. 1 Allah Jokhio had filed F.C. Suit No. 2 of 1994 for declaration, injunction, possession and mesne profits in the Court of IInd Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah against applicants/defendants. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff/respondent No. 1 Allan and his son respondent No. 1 (i) died and their legal heirs were joined. The case of the respondents was that the agricultural land bearing S. Nos. 50/1.2.3. 53/3, 57/2, 2A, 3A and 63/2,3, 3A admeasuring 26 acres 23 ghuntas Deh Satpuri Tapa Bhoora Taluka Sakrand, District Nawabshah, was owned by respondent No. 1 and was mortgaged with National Bank of Pakistan Sakrand Branch. The applicants were cultivating the suit land and were given the Zamindari share to the respondent. The applicants, thereafter had refused to give Zamindari share and started claiming that father of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 Sajjan was owners of the suit land, the respondent No. 1 filed application before the Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah on 29-11-1993 who forwarded the same to respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 informed that Khata of the suit land was mutated in favour of father of applicants Nos. 1 & 2 vide entry No. 166, dated 8-6-1958 by order of Deputy Commissioner Nawabshah dated 29-4-1958. The respondents denied to have sold the land and stated that Khata was changed fraudulently and male fidely. They prayed as under:-
(a) That it be declared that the purported entry No. 166, dated 8-6-1958 contained in the Village Form No. 7 of Deh. 23 Satpura, Taluka Sakrand, District Nawabshah, with regard to the Land in suit in a forged, fraudulent and illegal entry and is therefore, not binding on the plaintiff and of no legal consequence whatsoever and be ordered to be deleted.
(b) That decree for possession as owner of land in suit viz. Survey Nos. 50/1.2 and 38-6 Acres, 58/2A, 3A, 2-35 Acres, 5/2, 4-00 Acres, 63/2, 3, 3A, 7-25,Acres, 53/3, 3-37 Acres to I area 26 Acres and 23 Ghuntas of Deh, 23- atpuri, Taiuka Sakrand, District Nawabsh h be passed.
(c) That the defendants to give the profits e joyed by them from the land in suit, till the pl intiffs are put in possession of the land in suit and for that purpose a Commissioner be appointed to determine the amount of mesne profits.
(d) That the defendants be restrained from transferring the possession of the suit land or alienating or encumbering in any manner the land in suit to any other person or persons directly or.
Indirectly.
3. The applicants in their written statement besides raising legal pleas denied the claim of respohdent No. 1 and contended that father of applicants was owner of the suit and land and was in possession since 1958, therefore, the question of giving Zamindari Share to respondent No. 1 did not arise. They also denied other pleas of the plaintiffs.
4. The Trial Court framed the following issues:---
(1) Whether the Entry No. 166 dated 8-6- 1958 in Village form No.. VII of Deh, 23- Satpuri Tappa Bhoora Talika Sakrand is a complete, genuine and legal entry?
(2) Whether land suit legally transferred from the name of plaintiff tolhe name of Sajjan S/O Sulleman, the father of defendants Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 in the year 1958?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is owner of the land' in suit and he had mortgaged the same with the National Bank of Pakistan Sakrand Branch earlier and personally also, if as, what is its effect?
(4) Whether the record-of-rights in respect of the landing suit in the Taluka Office and stands in the name of the plaintiff, if as what is its effect?
(5) Whether defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are heirs of the land in suit and that they were giving Zamindari Share of the land to the plaintiff until Kharif 1994, if yes, what is its effect?
(6) Whether the land in suit has been sold away by the defendants Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8, if so what is its effect?
(7) Whether the suit is time-barred?
(8) Whether the suit land is. Bad for non-joining of necessary parties?
(9) What should the decree be?
5. The respondent No. 1 examined himself and two witnesses namely Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Hassan. The applicant Sulleman also examined himself and his two witnesses namely Muhammad Pariyal and Qassim.
6. The Trial Court after hearing the parties Advocates and considering all material decreed the suit of respondent No. 1 to the extent of prayer clause (a) vide judgment dated 2-6-2001.
7. Present applicants had also filed F.C. Suit No. 93 of 1996 against the respondent for injunction on the same facts with the following prayer:---
(a) Decree for injunction be passed in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants whereby the defendants be prohibited from changing disturbing or try to change/disturb the entries of.
Ownership now existing in favour of plaintiffs in the Revenue Record-of-Rights or keeping or try to keep the same in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of suit land, situate in Deh 23 Satpuri Taluka Sakrand or disturbing/interfering or try to disturb/ interfering with the occupation and enjoyment possession of plaintiffs on the said land or any part thereof, directly or indirectly by themselves, through their agents, associates or subordinates or by any means, except on decree of Civil Court of Competent Jurisdiction.
(b) Costs of the suit be born by any means.
(c) Any other relief.
8. The Court framed the following issues:---
(1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to remain in possession and enjoyment of suit land without interference or suit land without interference or disturbance to their title from defendants?
(2) Whether no cause of action does accrue to plaintiff to file the suit?
(3) Whether suit is not maintainable?
(4) Whether suit is not proper form?
(5) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?
(6) What should the decree be?
9. Applicant Muhammad Sulleman was examined as Ex.
50. Respondents did not examine any witness. The Trial Court dismissed the suit for injunction filed by the applicants after considering the evidence on record vide judgment dated 2-6-2001.
10. Applicants Sulleman and other being dissatisfied from the judgments of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah, filed Civil Appeals Nos. 38 and 39 of 2001, before the learned District Judge, Nawabshah.
11. Learned 1st Additional District Judge, Nawabshah, vide his judgments dated 29-3-2007, after hearing the parties. Advocates dismissed both the appeals and maintained the judgements passed by Civil Court.
12. Mr. Suresh J. Jethanand, Advocate for the applicants contended, inter alia, that the judgments and decrees passed by the lower Courts are against the fact, law and equity. Appellate Courts has failed to frame points for determination and exercised jurisdiction not vested in it in deciding the appeal and has committed illegality in repeating the reasoning of the Trial Court on the, issues.
According to him while deciding issue Nos.4, 6, 7 and 8 evidence has not been discussed. He has relied on 1996 SCM R 669.
13. Mr. Basharat Ahmed Jatt, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that there are concurrent findings of two Courts below. The judgments are well-reasoned and the evidence have been fully discussed. No illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Court below in deciding the issues, therefore, this Court cannot interfere while exercising the jurisdiction conferred under Section 115, C.P.C. He has relied on PLD 2003 SC 688, 2006 SCM R 930 and PLD 2003 SC 362.
14. I have given full consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available before me.
15. There is very limited scope of this Court under Section 115, CPC when there are concurrent findings of the two Courts below. Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have held that tha applicants had failed to prove that their father had purchased the suit land from deceased Allan respondent. Evidence of both the parties were recorded in the Trial Court and both the Courts below after appraisal of evidence came to this conclusion that applicants were not entitled for grant of any permanent injunction and at the same time came to this conclusion that respondents were the owners of the suit land. Statement of deceased respondent Allan was also recorded in the Trial Courts where he had denied to have sold the land to the applicants. Burden was upon the applicants to prove that the land in suit was sold out by the deceased Allan. They have even failed to produce order dated 29-4-1958 of Deputy Commissioner on the basis of which the Khata was changed. They have also failed to produce any other document showing that the lands was sold and even the price of the land has not been disclosed . Learned Additional District Judge while deciding the appeals has taken the whole evidence and the issues into consideration and has given cogent reason for arriving to this conclusion that the applicants had failed to prove their ownership and that they were not entitled for any permanent injunction, therefore, their suit for injunction was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court and Suit for Declaration. Possession and Mesne Profits was rightly decreed. Though the Appellate Court had not framed specific points but all the issues have been shown in the judgment and evidence on these issues have been discussed by the Appellate Court in the judgment, therefore, it cannot be said that any material irregularity has been committed by the Appellate Court and solely on that basis the judgment could not be set aside.
16. For the above facts and reasons I do not see any irregularity or illegality committed by the Trial Court or by Appellate Court which could justify interference of High Court under Revisional Jurisdiction which is limited. The applicants were legally obliged to make out a case for exercise of its jurisdiction by High Court under the clauses mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 115, CPC, which they have failed. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the above revisions have no force, which are accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. .