CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---This civil revision has been directed against the consolidated judgment dated 9-12-2004 passed by Rana Muhammad Shafi, learned Addl. District Judge, Sheikhupura, who dismissed both the appeals and up-held the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the plaint are that the petitioners/ plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief that the suit land fully described in the plaint was evacuee property. Mst. Sajida Bibi and Farrukh Hussain displaced persons from Fatehpur (U.P. India) got verified their claim for the land and in view thereof, they were allotted evacuee land in different villages including Mad Wala Kalan, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. On 3-3-1975 they-sold the suit land to Ghulam Muhammad plaintiff who died during the pendency of the suit and was represented by L.Rs, Ghulam Muhammad purchased the suit property against the consideration of Rs,15,000, vide registered sale deed dated 3-3-1975 (Exh 112). Later on, Shah Muhammad and Ali Muhammad sons of Mehr Din, moved an application through their general attorney under Sections 10 and 11 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, alleging that the allotment to Farrukh Hussain etc. was made on bogus claim. The petitioners/plaintiffs further asserted that they were bona fide purchasers for consideration, therefore, decree be granted to the effect that plaintiff Ghulam Muhammad was owner in possession of suit property and the order of cancellation dated 17-6-1981 passed by Assistant Commissioner/ DeputySettlement Commissioner, Lahore, were illegal, void, mala tide and ineffective upon the. rights of the plaintiffs.
3. That the suit was contested by the defendants/respondents, who filed written statement.
4. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file this suit? OPD-10.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his conduct to file this suit? OPD-10.
(3) Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD-10.
(4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD-10.
(5) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? OPD-4.
(6) Whether the suit has been correctly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, if not, what is correct valuation for the said purpose? 0.P.Parties.
(7) Whether the plaintiff has filed this suit with mala fide intention? OPD-10
(8) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of land measuring 171- kanals; 19 marlas as detailed in pars No,1 of the plaint situated at Mudwala Revenue Estate, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura and the order dated 17-6-1981 passed by defendant No,11 is illegal, void, mala tide and ineffective against the proprietary rights of the plaintiff? OPD (8-A) Whether the allotment of defendant No,13 is valid, if so its effect? OPD (8-B) Whether the sale in favour of the plaintiff is fictitious and void? OPD (8-C) Whether the defendant No,18 is bona fide purchaser for value without notice and his rights are protected? OPD (8-D) Whether the plaintiffs Muhammad Siddique etc. are not the legal heirs of Ghulam Muhammad deceased and defendants Nos. 13 to 17 are the legal heirs? OPD
(9) Relief.
5. That after recording of oral as well as documentary evidence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26-6-2003
6. That on 6-7-1981, two appeals were filed against the same judgment and decree, one by Muhammad Siddique and others while the second appeal was by Mst. Ghulam Fatima and others.
Both the appeals were decided through single judgment, which were also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 9-12-2004 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Sheikhupura.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that judgments and decrees of both the learned courts below are against the law and facts. Both the courts have committed material irregularities while dismissing the suit and appeals of the petitioners. Learned trial Court has not properly framed issues to the pleadings and similarly burden, of proof has not been placed properly. The judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below are based on presumption. The allotment in favour of Farrukh Hussain and Mst. Sajida Bibi was bogus and fraudulent. Learned first appellate court has also ignored Exh.P4 which was relevant for the decision of controversy between the parties and has also neglected 'that Mutations Nos.32 and 33, Exh.P1 and Exh.P2 which has been reviewed by the order of Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, on 2-6- 1980. Further contends that Ghulam Muhammad challenged the order dated 30-4-1980 in an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. which was dismissed by this court (High Court). The petitioners/plaintiffs produced convincing oral as well as documentary evidence, but both the learned courts below have not taken notice of the evidence', hence this civil revision be accepted, impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below be set aside and suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs be decreed as prayed with cost throughout.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed this civil revision and has contended that there is concurrent finding of two courts below who have considered all these arguments and thereafter dismissed the suit as well as appeal filed by the petitioners. This civil revision is without any substance and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Arguments heard. Record perused.
10. Issues. Nos.3, 8 and 8-A to 8-D are relevant' documents for the disposal of the civil revision. -The onus of proof was on the defendants which were decided in favour of the respondents/defendants.
11. Perusal of record reveals that Ghulam Muhammad on -6-7-1981 filed a suit for declaration, who expired during the pendency of suit and his legal heirs were impleaded as plaintiffs who are defendants Nos.13 to 17. Mst. Ghulam Fatima to prove her marriage with Ghulam Muhammad has produced the copy of marriage certificate which was Exh.D1/1 according to which Mst. Ghulam Fatima was married to Ghulam Muhammad on 15-8-1972. This marriage certificate was witnessed by Muhammad Ismail and Sohanda. M.st. Ghulam Fatima also appeared herself in person as D.W.7 and rebutted the contents of plaint and supported her version already recorded in her written statement. In her statement as D.W.7, Mst. Ghulam Fatima corroborated the contents of Nikah Nama and confirms that Sohanda was witness of her Nikah. Similarly, Mst. Ghulam Fatima produced Exh.D5 a copy of her identity card' in which she was recorded as wife of Ghulam Muhammad Exh.D2/1 is a copy of birth register which shows that respondent No,15 Mst. Nargis was born on 4-10-1976. The defendants also produced in documentary evidence Exh.D3/1 to Exh.D4/1 utility bills issued in the name of Ghulam Muhammad. The evidence' produced by Mst. Ghulam Fatima could not be rebutted by the petitioners/plaintiffs.
12. That the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that they filed application for additional evidence which was dismissed by the first appellate court is also an afterthought because admittedly the suit was tiled on 6-7-1981: The application for additional evidence was submitted on 7-12-2004 with the delay' of more than 23 B years. Therefore, learned first appellate court has rightly dismissed the application for additional evidence.
13. Learned counsel for the parties have argued this case at considerable length and have gone through the pleadings as well as documentary evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned judgments. There is concurrent finding by both the courts below who have considered the pleadings as well as the documentary evidence produced by the parties and issues Nos. 3, 8-A to 8-D were decided in favour of defendants/respondents. No interference is called for an civil revision is dismissed.