' IJAZ-UL-AHSAN, J.---This order shall dispose of C.R. No, 1241 of 2009 and C.R. ,No,1242 of 2009, as common questions of facts and law are involved in these revision petitions.
2. Through these revision petitions, the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil judge, Gujranwala which was affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala by order dated 6-4-2009 has been assailed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner namely Abdul Ghafoor sold a piece of land measuring 10 kanals and 17 marlas to respondent No,2 out of Khasra No,68. The said Abdul Ghafoor died in the year, 1997 whereupon the land was inherited by the petitioner. On 2-7-2009, the petitioner filed an application with the Revenue Authorities for demarcation of his share. On the very next day i.e, 3-7-2009, respondent No,1 also filed an application for demarcation of the property purchased by him from the petitioner's father.
3. According to the learned counsel, as a result of demarcation, respondent No,1 was found to be in illegal possession of 12 marlas of land. However, while the proceedings for recovery of possession were pending before the DCO, Gujranwala, respondent No,1 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and sought restraining order against A dispossession. The suit in question was ultimately decreed by the learned Civil Judge on 20-5-2006. An appeal filed against the said judgment and decree did not succeed and was dismissed vide order, dated 6-4-2009.
4. Learned counsel submits that, learned civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter of demarcation and the Revenue Authorities had exclusive jurisdiction to pass the requisite orders in this regard. As such the order passed by the lower court is illegal and coram non judice. Further submits that the demarcation report was in his favour and the Revenue Authorities had found that the respondent was in unlawful possession. The said fact is also evident from the copy of Roznarncha Waqiati Exh.P-II. He has also pointed out that the learned courts below-erred in law in setting aside the order, dated 6-8-2009 passed by the District Collector in favour of the petitioner.
It is also pointed out that the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner was ignored which, if considered would have led the courts to arrive at a different conclusion. In this regard, the learned counsel has referred to the demarcation report, copy of Roznamcha Waqiati and the order of the Collector, Gujranwala , dated 6-8-2009.
5. I have gone' through the record including the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties. The judgments of the courts below have also been examined. The only issue involved in this lis relates to the ownership and possession of the suit property by respondent No,1, which was disputed by the petitioner. In this regard reference may be made to the main and basic document namely Exh. P-III. It is a registered sale-deed in favour of respondent No,1. The petitioner challenged the document on the ground that there was a note on the sale document wherein entire property pertaining to the Khasra No,68 owned by the petitioner's father had been mentioned as having B been sold to respondent No,1, This according to the petitioner was a forged addition designed to deprive the petitioner of his legal rights in the suit property. Learned courts below did not find that any forgery had been committed, in view of the fact that the note in question was in the same hand-writing and in the same sequence and it was a registered document which has a presumption of authenticity attached to it. This presumption was not rebutted by the petitioner.
6. It is also noted from the record and the evidence produced by the parties that the respondents had purchased additional land from Khasra No,68 owned by father of the petitioner for which he had paid an additional sum of Rs,15,000 through Cheque No, 044-96756, dated 11-1-1988 of MCB Sadhoke Branch which was admittedly received by father of the petitioner. This was apparently done to improve the shape of the suit plot. This fact was not denied by the petitioner.
7. As far as giving due weight to the demarcation report and copy of Roznamcha is concerned, perusal of the record as well as the judgments of the courts below indicates that these were duly examined by the said courts. However, the documentary evidence produced by the respondents was found more reliable, credible and plausible compared to the evidence produced by the petitioner which mainly consisted of oral assertions unsubstantiated by documentary evidence of value and substance. It is further noticed that the validity of the registered sale-deed in favour of the respondents and subsequent purchase of an additional piece of land by the respondent from the petitioner's father could not be successfully assailed by the petitioner before the trial as well as the learned Appellate Court. As far as the question regarding lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in such matters is concerned, suffice it to say, that the suit property is admittedly residential property where the respondent has constructed a residential house and is occupying the same. It was nowhere alleged that it was agricultural land and the question regarding jurisdiction was not raised at any earlier stage. Further the legal questions involved in this list included questions relating to title, which were beyond the jurisdictional competence of revenue authorities.
8. I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the learned courts below have misread or failed to read any piece of evidence or acted illegally or with material irregularity. In view of the above, these petitions have no merit and the same are accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.