' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the plaint are that the petitioners-plaintiffs are in possession as owners of house in dispute comprising 12 marlas situated in village Pial Khurd for the last more than 40-50 years through their fore fathers, The house was constructed by the plaintiffs in 1982 and that Shaukat Ali defendant No,2 has no concern whatsoever with the suit property. The plaintiffs further contended that they came to know seven days after the institution of the suit that suit property has been allotted in the name of Shaukat Ali defendant No,2 vide allotment Mutation No,588, dated 2-6-1995 which allotment is against the facts and based on mala fide intention and ulterior motive. The plaintiffs further prayed for a decree for declaration that the plaintiffs are the sole owner of disputed house and allotment of Shaukat Ali defendant No,2 may be declared as illegal, void and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiffs.
2. The suit was contested only by deficient No,2 on the ground amongst other that civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suit; that the pleadings of the plaintiffs are vague; that the plaintiffs are residing the village Pial Kalan and not in Pial Khurd and that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction.
3. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- ISSUES:
(1) Whether the defendant has been allotted the disputed plot despite long standing plaintiffs' possession thereon? OPP
(2) If issue No,1 proves then whether the defendant is based on mala fide.? OPD
(3) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiffs have wrongly valued the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for? OPD
(7) Relief.
' The parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence and the learned. Civil Judge, Kasur vide his judgment and decree, dated 27-10-2001 decreed the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs against defendant No,2. The learned trial Court further declared the certificate Exh.D.2. And Mutation of allotment No,588 dated 12-6-1995 as illegal, void and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, defendant No,2 Shaukat Ali preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur allowed the appeal and vide judgment and decree, dated 3-8-2002 set aside the judgment and decree, dated 27-10-2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Kasur in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs, hence this revision petition.
4, The learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the house in dispute situated in Abadi Deh and by virtue of section 5 Punjab Conferment of Proprietary Rights on Non-Proprietors Abadi Deh Act, 1995 they have become absolute owners in possession of the suit-land. Further contends that by virtue of above Act, no one could be allotted the suit house unless it is so decided by the Commissioner as provided under section 5 of the said Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that they have spent a huge amount when they constructed the house and since then they have been residing with their family. He further contended that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts and that the learned appellate Court has not applied his judicial mind and that the impugned judgment is fanciful which is liable to be set aside. The civil revision be accepted and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court be maintained.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. This evidence and the record reveals that the petitioners are not consistent about their version.
At one stage, they take the version that they have constructed a house over the plot in 1982 and before that this land was in possession of their forefathers for the last 40-50 years, On the other side, they contend that the suit house is situated in Abadi Deh and because of section 3 of the Conferment of Proprietary Rights in lands on Non-Proprietors Act, 1995, they are the absolute owners of suit house and allotment of Shaukat Ali respondent No,2 is void ab initio. The petitioners are not consistent. The petitioners could not establish, their possession through oral as well as documentary evidence that they are in possession of suit house nor they could produce documentary evidence in support of their title. A mere claim without corroboration A have no status in the eye of law. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners own other property too. Section 3 of Punjab Conferment of Proprietary Rights on Non-Proprietor Abadi Deh Act, 1995 is applicable only when a person is landless and a person who owns other land he cannot take the benefit of section 3 of the above Act. The evidence on record further establish that the petitioners are the resident of Pial Kalan. The impugned judgment and decree is in accordance with law and unexceptional so no interference is called for. The civil revision is devoid of any merit, same is dismissed.