' MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.---Through this petition the petitioners have assailed the judgments and decrees dated 15-12-2007 and 24-3-2010 passed respectively by the learned Civil Judge, Shakargarh and the learned Additional District Judge, Shakargarh.
2. Briefly stated the facts according to the petitioner are to the effect that admittedly a memorandum of exchange was executed on 12-7-1991 between the petitioners and the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (hereinafter to be referred as "the respondents") in respect of parcels of land situated in Mauza Azizpur, Tehsil Shakargarh, owned by both the parties measuring in the case of the petitioners 10 marlas and in the case of the respondents 13 marlas.
The said memorandum of exchange is stated to have not been acted upon. As a consequence, no exchange of property took place nor any title was transferred nor any mutation was entered into the revenue record nor any exchange deed was registered. On 28-11-2001 the respondents brought a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 against the petitioners for recovery of possession of the land in question (10 marlas) on the premise that the respondents were the owners in possession of the said land on the basis of the memorandum of exchange dated 12-7- 1991 whereunder the parties had exchanged their respective lands. The petitioners, however, on 10- 11-2001 forcibly dispossessed the respondents from the land in question. The said suit of the respondents was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Shakargarh on 10-4-2003. The appeal/revision (it is not clear from the record as to whether an appeal or a revision was filed by the petitioneRs, against the said decree was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shakargarh. The petitioners being the owners of the land in question filed a suit for "Establishment of Title and Recovery of Possession," on 31-1-2004 in respect of the land in question but the same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Shakargarh, through the impugned judgment and decree dated 15-12-2007. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal which was also dismissed through the impugned judgment and decree dated 24-3-2010 of the learned Additional District Judge, Shakargarh.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the argument that the impugned judgments and decrees have been passed illegally and with material irregularity. In support of his contention he submits that the learned courts below failed to appreciate that the memorandum of exchange is not a document of title, the said memorandum was not acted upon, no exchange of land took place, no formal instrument of transfer of property was ever executed, the petitioners were deprived of the possession of the land in question through a decree obtained by the respondents in the suit filed by them under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The petitioners have a vested title in the land in question.
4. The record of the case has been gone through with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioneRs,
5. The decree dated 10-4-2003 passed in the respondents suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 was, inter alga, passed on the basis of the report of the Local Commissioner, who was appointed at the joint request of the parties through order dated 12-2-2002. The learned Local Commissioner's report is comprehensive in nature. It was reported therein, inter alia,, on the basis of the admissions made by the petitioners that the petitioners were in possession of both parcels of land subject matter of the memorandum of exchange. It is worth noting that the appeal/revision filed by the petitioners against the said decree dated 10-4-2003 also failed.
6. There is a concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the learned courts below against the petitioneRs, The learned courts below have passed the impugned judgments and decrees after weighing the evidence led by the parties. Both the learned courts below concurrently held that the memorandum of exchange had been acted upon and the petitioners are in possession of the property obtained through the exchange. The learned counsel for the petitioners has been unable to explain or establish otherwise. It, therefore, does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to contend that the memorandum of exchange was not acted upon.
7. Under the circumstances I do not feel persuaded to intervene in the matter. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine being devoid of force.