MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 20-3-1989 the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent. In the plaint it was stated that the shop described in the plaint along with Thara and Chajja was sold by Lala Ram Lehl and Chuni Lehl to Muhammad Sadiq and Lal Khan vide registered sale-deed dated 1-4-1947. The said persons sold the shop to Muhammad Latif and he sold it to the petitioner vide registered sale-deed dated 12-2-1989 The respondent No,2 had purchased the house towards West of the said Thara and got approved a building plan on 17-7-1986 and wants to open door towards the Thara. A declaration and injunction was accordingly prayed for. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement denied the said allegations with the plea that neither Thara and Chajja were part of the shop nor were these transferred to the petitioner. Issues were framed.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit on 27-3-1994. A learned Additional District Judge, Jhelum, dismissed the first appeal on 21-6-2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that evidence on record has been misread by the learned counsel below. According to him the said Thara and Chajja were transferred to his client by Latif. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgments and decrees.
3. I have gone through the copies of the record. I have already reproduced above the material contents of the pleadings of the parties. Exh.P3 is copy of the sale-deed dated 1-4-1947 executed by the said Hindu owners. I find that while describing the shop it has been stated that towards West of the shop is a Bazar Thara and covered street. Ehx.P4 is sale-deed dated 17-6-1975 executed by Muhammad Sadiq and Lal Khan in favour of Latif the vendor of the petitioner in this document also the same- description is given. However, in Exh.P12 which is a copy of sale-deed dated 11-2-1989 in favour of the petitioner. Following legend appeared in the preamble and towards West only main Bazar Kala Gujjran is mentioned. The plain reading of the said documents would show that Thara or Chajja was never claimed to be part of the shop or transferred as such to any of the vendees, including Latif the vendor of the petitioner. Apart from the said fact apparent on the face of documents relied upon by the petitioner himself, I find that the said Latif vendor appeared as P. W.1 and in his cross-examination stated without any demur that Thara does not exist at the spot.
Besides, Muhammad Shafiq P.W-3 has stated that in between the shop and Thara is a street and that the petitioner had never used the Thara.
4. Having thus, examined the said evidence on record, I do not find any ground being made out to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees. The civil revision is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.