' RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.---Through this Civil Revision, the petitioner has assailed the judgments and decrees, dated 27-3-1996 and 23-7-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Rajanpur respectively whereby suit of respondents Nos. 1 to 13/plaintiffs was decreed against the petitioner/ defendants and others respondents.
2 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs Ghulam Mustafa etc., instituted this suit on 3-4-1993 against the defendants Daula etc., and thereby sought declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of the land measuring 79-Kanals situated in Mauza Wang/Chak Doim, Tehsil and District Rajanpur whereas the defendants had got no right of interest of any kind in the land in suit, and thus, the entries in the Revenue Record being wrong, incorrect, illegal, against facts were void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs qua the suit-land and thus, the said entries were liable to be corrected. As a consequential relief, it was further prayed that through perpetual injunction the petitioners be restrained from asserting any claim in respect of the suit property or causing any interference in their possession or alienating the suit property in any manner on the basis of the incorrect/wrong entries in the Revenue Record. In this connection, it was further prayed that if during the trial of the case, the plaintiffs were not found in actual physical possession of the suit-land, then, in such situation, the decree for possession be also passed in respect of the suit land in their favour. According to the plaintiffs, the land in dispute situated in Mouza Wang/Chak Doam, Tehsil and District Rajanpur was allotted in the year, 1962 in favour of the defendants Nos.1 and 2, namely, Daula son of Baja and Faqir Muhammad vide R.L-2 No,129-130 and the same was sold by the defendants Nos.1 and 2 to Muhammad Sharif son of Ghessoo and in this connection Mutations of Sale No,425 and 426 were sanctioned in 26-11-1992. However, said Muhammad Sharif sold and transferred the land in favour of Feroz Khan through Mutation No,495 sanctioned on 15-11-1964 and again said Feroz Khan transferred the land as aforementioned in favour of Ali Muhammad etc. Vide Mutation No,547 sanctioned on 2-8-1966 and similarly said Ali Muhammad etc. Transferred the land measuring 371 Kanals and 9 Marlas in consideration of Rs,45,550/50 in favour of the plaintiffs vide Mutation No,592 sanctioned on 27-7-1967 and thus, the plaintiff became the owners of the land in dispute. However, it was in the year, 1970 that it came into the knowledge of the Consolidation Officers that land allotted vide R.L-2 No,129-130 was the result of double allotment and thus, on the basis of said knowledge the Consolidation Officer cancelled the land in dispute earlier allotted in favour of the defendants Nos.1 and 2. However, order of cancellation whereupon an order was passed that as Assistant Commissioner/Settlement Land Commissioner was the competent authority to make allotment, therefore, the plaintiffs were directed to approach the said Authority. In this respect, plaintiff further alleged that before implementation of the above said order, the field-staff of revenue department allotted the land in dispute to two person, namely, Habib Ullah son of Wazir Din and Muhammad Bakhsh son of Karim- udDin whereupon being aggrieved the plaintiffs again preferred an appeal and made prayer to the effect that as the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had earlier claim in the Mauza, therefore, the land in dispute be allotted to the defendants Nos.1 and 2 on preferential ground and thereafter, the same be given to the plaintiffs whereupon the Additional Commissioner (Settlement and Consolidation), Multan passed an order that the defendants Nos.1 and 2 allotted the land on preferential ground in respect of remaining of their units. However, in the said order, Additional Commissioner (Settlement and Consolidation) also passed an order to the effect that after the allotment in favour of the defendants Nos.1 and 2, same should not be transferred to the plaintiffs and for the said purposes, they (plaintiffs) should contact the defendants whereafter the plaintiffs approached the defendants Nos.1 and 2, who in recognition of the plaintiff's right executed general power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff No,4, namely, Ghulam Rasool wherein it was also mentioned that as the defendants had already been compensated, therefore, the said general power of attorney was being executed in favour of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, thereafter the defendants Nos.3 to 7, namely, Ghulam Qadir, Muhammad Hussain son of Sohne Khan, Ghaus Bakhsh and Faqir Bakhsh sons of Fazal and Faiz Bakhsh son of Bungal filed a writ against the corder of Additional Commissioner in the Honourable High Court with the prayer that the land in dispute should not be cancelled from their names. However, before decision of the said writ, revenue authorities after cancellation of allotment existing in favour of defendants Nos. 3 to 5 allotted and confirmed the same in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 vide R.L-2 No, 129-6 and 1307 but as status quo in the writ passed by Hon'ble High Court was still in the field, therefore, the plaintiffs could not get the possession of the land in dispute and thus, the possession continuously remained with the defendants Nos.3 to 7. However, the said writ was dismissed by the Honourable High Court vide order, dated 30-9-1991 and thus, the decision given by the Additional Commissioner, Multan attained finality. In paragraph No,1 of the plaint, the plaintiffs alleged that as defendants Nos.1 and 2 had already received entire sale price of the suit property and they had also transferred the land in their favour whereupon Mutations Nos.425 and 426 were sanctioned and they (defendants Nos.1 and 2) were not left with any right or interest to the suit land but the defendants Nos.1 and 2 taking undue advantage of the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Multan after having received sale consideration/compensation from the plaintiffs executed general power of attorney in their favour and that it was quite apparent from the aforesaid general power of attorney that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had relinquished all their rights over the suit property and they were no more owners of the same. However, the said defendants Nos.1 and 2 out of greed and at the instigation of other persons had refused the land in dispute to the plaintiffs whereas the defendants Nos. 3 to 7 were also reluctant in delivering the possession of the land in favour of the plaintiffs. It was in the background of the above noted facts and circumstances that the plaintiffs were obliged to institute the instant suit on 3-7-1993.
3. The suit very hotly contested by defendants Nos.2 Alif to 2-Dal, 3 and 4 by filing their separate written statements, dated 5-1-1994 wherein a number of preliminary objections were taken to the effect that as the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, therefore, suit was liable to be dismissed. The plaintiffs themselves had made a promise not to initiate or take any proceeding in respect of the suit land and thus, they were estoped by their act and conduct to bring this suit. The defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had become owners of the land in dispute because they were bona fide purchasers for value and that the general power of attorney which was executed in favour of the defendant No,4 was later on cancelled through Abtal Nama, dated 23-1-1980 and as such, the plaintiffs were not competent to institute the present suit against the defendants in respect of the suit land. The defendants also controverted all other allegations as levelled in the plaint and made prayer that the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed. The defendants Nos.5 to 7 also filed a separate written statement, dated 7-7-1993 wherein they controverted all the allegations as levelled in the plaint and took up a number of preliminary objections to the effect that as no document of title existed in favour of the plaintiffs, therefore, the suit was not maintainable in its present form and that as the suit was not properly valued and the plaintiffs were out of possession, therefore, suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. However, it is wroth mentioning that defendant, namely, Daula son of Baja filed through his counsel conceding written statement, dated 18-11-1993.
4. On the basis of divergent pleadings of the parties learned trial court framed eleven issues. After recording the evidence learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent on 27-3-1996.
Feeling aggrieved petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 27-3-1996, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, on 27-3-1998, hence, this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that initially eleven issues were framed on 23-1-1994 but subsequently, after about nine months thirteen new issues were framed. Both the courts below have given judgments on the basis of eleven previous issues and gave no finding on the recasted issues and thus, courts below have violated the Order XX, Rule 45 and Order XLI, Rule 51, C.P.C.; that declaratory suit was inherently incompetent decreed could not have been passed on the incompetent plaint; that based of alleged ownership of the plaintiff is general power of attorney Exh.P.7 while the statement of Altaf, P.W.1 is regarding execution of the agreement to sell, neither any sale deed of the suit property favour of Ghulam Rasool has been brought on record nor any,4reemertilb sell was brought on the file, hence, declaratory suit regarding the ownership of the suit property could not be decreed on the basis of general power of attorney. Thus, courts below have committed misreading and non-reading. Both the courts below have totally misconstrued the Exh.P.7; that contents of power of attorney Exh.P.7 on the basis of which the suit has been decreed have not been proved; that findings on issue No,6 regarding deficiency of court fee is contrary to the law; that in absence of proper court fee plaint has no value in the eye of law hence, impugned decrees cannot sustained.
6. Arguments heard, 'Record perused.
7(sic). In order to prove the case, plaintiff examined Altaf as P.W.1. And produce copy of Mutations Nos.424, 426, 495, 547 as Exh.P.1 to Exh.P.4, copy of order of the Additional Commissioner as Exh.P.5, copy of order of High as Exh.P.6, copy of general power of attorney as Exh.P.7, copy of R.L.II as Exh.P.8, copies of Mutation Nos.41, 44, 427, 592, 516 as Exh.P.9 to Exh.P.13 copies of Jamabandi as Exh.P.14 to Exh.P.18.
7-A. I have gone through the record available on the file and impugned order, both the courts below in their impugned judgments have considered oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties and after considering all the material available on the file, gave the finding. Both the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that general power of attorney coupled with Mutation No, 592, dated 27-7-1967 and other surrounding circumstances indicates that defendants Nos.1 and 2 had divested themselves of ownership rights over the land in dispute and the other land which were allotted to them though R.L-II and they had no entitlement or interest in the suit land whereas the plaintiff is pursuing the case even after cancellation of the allotment had acquired "right and interest" in the suit property. Petitioner/defendants have fsiled to rebut the above aspect of the case whereas plaintiff has proved their claim. Finding of both the courts below on issues Nos.2 to 10 cannot be interfered as petitioners have failed to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff. Learned trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment have discussed all the materials available on the record. Learned trial Court while dealing issues No,1 whether plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit property and are entitled to declaration in para. 5 have discussed all the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence produced by the parties and rightly come to the conclusion that plaintiffs are owners of the land and are entitled to recover the possession of the same. I have not found any illegality or infirmity in the findings arrived by the learned trial court in para.5 to 8 of the impugned judgment and decree, dated 27-3-1996. Similarly, findings arrived at by the courts below in para 10 and 11 cannot be interfered. They were entitled for the decree. Both the courts below while considering the general power of attorney Exh.P.7 rightly decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs. I have gone through the record and impugned orders passed by the Court below, which are correct. This Court has very limited jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent finding of facts recorded by courts below. I have not found any misreading or non-reading in the impugned judgments and the same are well reasoned based on law and facts. Findings arrived by courts below after validity analyzing facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees reveals that the conclusions arrived at by both the courts below are elaborate and are based on cogent reasons. No misreading or non-reading of evidence or any other legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners with the judgments rendered by the courts below warranting interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. As per the dictum of law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court in case of Aurangzeb through Legal heirs and others v. Muhammad Jaffar and another (2007 SCM R 236), Shafi Muhammad and others v. Khanzada Gul and others (2007 SCM R 368) and Rashid Ahmad v.
Said Ahmad (2007 SCM R 926), concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are not open to exception unless it is established that the same suffered from any jurisdictional defect or were based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, which elements are conspicuously lacking in the present civil revision.
9. Resultantly, this revision petition being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.