' ATTAULLAH KHAN J.---This is a revision petition filed by Haji Rustam Khan against the respondents wherein he has impugned the judgment and decree dated 26-4-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I Lakki vide which he dismissed the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28-5-2001 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Lakki Marwat.
2. The brief facts are that the plaintiffs Gul Azam etc.; filed suit against the defendants/petitioners for permanent injunction in respect of the disputed property restraining the defendants from alienating through sale and constructing new building thereon etc.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants concerned who filed written statement and divergent pleadings of the parties gave rise to the framing of the following issues:--
(i) Whether the plaintiffs have got a cause of action?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from bringing the present suit?
(iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is within time'?
(iv) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?
(v) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties?
(vi) Whether the defendants have become owners of the suit land on account of their adverse possession for a period of more than twelve years?
(vii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is incompetent in its present form?
(viii)Whether there has already been a round of litigation between the parties in regard to the suit land, if so, its effect?
(ix) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for perpetual injunction as prayed for?
(x) Relief.
4. After recording evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28-5-2001 in favour of the plaintiffs for perpetual injunction restraining the alienation of the suit property. Appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed by the appellate Court vide judgment and decree impugned in this revision petition.
5. Written arguments have been filed by the learned counsel for the parties. I have perused the same in the light of record of the case.
6. In this case, the issue is whether the defendants are owners of the suit property on account of their adverse possession and whether in the previous litigation between the parties, the matter has been settled or not.
7. The record reveals that the property indispute is Shamilat-e-Deh. The copy of Wajib-ul-Arz has been produced by the Patwari as Exh.P.W.1./2 from which it is clear, that the suit property belonged to Landak and Kheru Khel tribes.
8. The plaintiff while appearing in the trial Court has stated that the property is Shamilat-e-Deh as per record of the Settlement Department which was granted by the Government to the two Tribes mentioned above in equal shares. While granting the same, the Government reserved the right to give any portion of the disputed property to a person who does not belong to the said two tribes on the condition that he had to re-claim the land within a period of five years and in case it was not done, the ownership would be reverted to the Members of the said two Tribes.
9. It is clear from the record including pedigree-table (Exh.DW.1/3 and Exh.DW.2/12) that the defendants/petitioners belonged to Baluch Tribe which is not the Member of the two Tribes to whom the land in dispute was granted by the Government. This fact is reflected in the Revenue Record and nothing in rebuttal is available.
10. The petitioners have relied upon Wajib-ul-Arz and have based their claim on the grant of land to their predecessor, namely, Ashiq Khan in lieu of his services as Subedar Major, subject to the condition faid down in the Wajib-ul-Arz. But the record is silent in this regard because the land granted to the predecessor of the defendants is not having the same khasra numbers which are disputed in this case. Moreover, there is also no evidence to prove the possession of predecessor of the defendants as owners of the Shamilat for five years as envisaged in the grant by the Government.
11. Moreover, the previous litigation pending before the Judicial Commissioner N.-W.F.P. In the year, 1949 and before the High Court of West Pakistan, has also negated the claim of the respondents. In the judgment dated 14-7-1952 delivered by the honourable Division Bench of the West Pakistan High Court, it has been held that the major portion of the suit land was never cultivated by the predecessor of the defendant or his legal heirs.
12. In view of this point also, the counter claim of the defendant is of no value. Now they cannot claim any title over the suit property. Similar verdict has been given by the Judicial Commissioner in his judgment dated 14-7-1952, wherein it has been held that the suit property was not owned or possessed by the defendants and it should go back to the original owners, i.e, Landak and Kheru Khel tribes.
13. Keeping in view the evidence of the parties; their Revenue Record and the previous judgments of the competent Courts, both the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments and decrees which are based on correct appreciation of evidence brought on record and need no inference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.
14. The concurrent findings by the learned two courts below based on facts and sound appreciation of evidence and the data available on record in favour of the respondent cannot be set at naught by this Court unless it is proved that the same are perverse, erroneous and against the record. Reliance in this respect is placed on the verdicts delivered by the Apex Court in the cases reported as Abdul Rahim and another v. Mst.Jantay Bibi and others (2000 SCM R 346), Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 Supreme Court 291) and Muhammad Rashid Ahmad v. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 293).
15. Resultantly, finding no substance in this revision petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.