AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.-Through . This single judgment, I intend to dispose of Civil revision No. 356 and 357 of 1995 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these Civil revisions.
2. These Civil revisions have been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Bahawalnagar dated 2.7.1995, whereby both the appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge lst Class Chishtian, consequently suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed, whereas suit filed by Sardar Ali was decreed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that suit land measuring 7 marlas fully described in the head note of plaint is in dispute. The petitioners filed a suit for possession on 8.10.1987, whereas Sardar Ali filed a suit for declaration on 4.10.1988. Both the suits were consolidated and the evidence was recorded in suit in hand and the learned Trial Court after full Trial of the suit dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners and decreed the suit filed by Sardar Ali. Two appeals were filed and the same were dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar vide consolidated judgment dated 2.7.1985.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that they have fully proved their case but both the Court below failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested to them by law. Further contends that the sale- deed on the basis of which Sardar Ali claiming the ownership of the land, in this sale- deed no previous title of seller has been shown.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents states that both the Courts below have reached to a right conclusion which is based on the evidence available on the i.e. Further contends that the sale-deed in his favour in intact till today. Even this sale-deed has not been challenged by any party, therefore, their suit has rightly been decreed by the learned Trial Court and suit of the petitioners was rightly dismissed. He supported the judgments of both the Court below.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the available record.
7. In this matter the basic and pivotal point revolves around the issue No.1, whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit property? OPP. Both the learned Courts below recorded findings against the petitioners, therefore their suit was dismissed. The learned Trial Court further held that the petitioners have failed to show the identification of the property in accordance with their documentary evidence: that the alleged titled documents of the petitioners do not relate to the suit property claimed in the suit.
8. I have noticed that contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that sale-deed in favour' of Sardar Ali respondent, that title of previous owner is not mentioned therein; I find that this contention is against the record and misconceived. The reference of revenue record is clearly mentioned in sale-deed. The Courts below scrutinizing the whole evidence have found that the plaintiffs/petitioners Muhammad Saleem failed to prove that the documents of title produced by him relates to the suit property. These concurrent findings are in accordance with record, In this revisional jurisdiction the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below cannot be interfered with till the time the petitioners proves that these findings are factually incorrect or the result of misreading or non-reading of any material evidence or are the result of misinterpretation of any documentary evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any such defect in the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Even the respondents have challenged the validity of titled documents of the petitioners on the basis that these have been issued by an unauthorized person, because after the repeal of settlement laws in the year 1945 the powers were given to the Notified Officer only. The District Collector does not figure in the list of Notified Officer as this point has not been pressed into service by the learned counsel for the respondents in the proceedings before the lower Courts, therefore, I will not comment upon these contentions. Even the learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that if the ownership of Sardar Ali is admitted to be true then there is no case of the petitioner Muhammad Saleem. I have appreciated this contention and admission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Even otherwise he is very senior, leading and credible lawyer. On the other hand, both the Courts below concurrently found the stand taken by respondent Sardar Ali to be correct. They have found true titled document produced by Sardar Ali with regard to the suit property. Both the Courts below have found that the sale-deed Ex.D-7 produced by respondents with regard to the suit land is correct.
9. In the light of what has been discussed above, I am not persuaded by the learned counsel for the petitioners to interfere with in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below.
Resultantly, these civil revisions are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.