HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J. --- Through this civil revision filed under Section 115 of C.P.C.
Petitioners have called in question orders passed by two Courts below. First order dated 15.3.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chichawatni and second order dated 7.9.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Chichawatni is impugned in this civil revision.
2. The brief facts of this civil revision are that petitioners' father claimed himself to be the owner of land measuring 10-Kanals which was mutated in the name of Muhammad Amin respondent/defendant through registered sale-deed No. 3794, dated 13.10.1975. The petitioners contention is that the same was transferred to respondent No. 1 as benami because petitioners' father himself had paid the amount and inclusion of name of the respondent/defendant in the Revenue Record was ineffective as he has no connection whatsoever with the suit property.
3. The suit, was agitated by the respondent/defendant by raising some preliminary objections as well as on merits; that the petitioner/plaintiff had got no cause of action; that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C.; that the suit was time-barred that plaint had incorrectly been valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction. On merits it was contended that mother of the defendant/respondent had received huge articles of dowry, gold ornaments and petitioner/plaintiff without her consent fraudulently sold out the same and purchased disputed land and petitioner/plaintiff did not pay the consideration amount from his on pocket. It was further contended that petitioner/plaintiff contracted second marriage and on the instigation of step mother of the respondent/defendant that petitioner/plaintiff male fidley filed this suit. It was further contended that petitioner/plaintiff had also children from his second were so he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
4. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:--- ISSUES: (1) Whether the defendant is benami owner of the suit property and the plaintiff is real owner in possession of the suit property? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPP
(4) Whether the defendant is entitled to compensatory cost under Section 35-A, C.P.C.? OPD
(5) Relief.
Both the parties adduced their evidence oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. The plaintiff-petitioner appeared as PW-3 and deposed that he was owner and occupant of land; that the purchased land from his on pocket and at that time he was an employee of WAPDA and he obtained possession of laod through his tenant and defendant/respondent was benamidar. Muhammad Khalid appeared as PW-4 whereas Muhammad Hanif son of Imam Din, Lumberdar of the villag appeared as PW-5 and deposed that plaintiff paid water fee and he issued Exh.P-2 and Exh.P-3, the receipt of payment. On the other hand respondent/defendant appeared as DW-1 and rebutted the claim of petitioner. He produced DW-2 his uncle in support of this defence. The defendant/respondent also produced copy of record of rights for the years 1976-77 as Exh.D-1 and copy of Khasra Gardawari for the year Khan 1976 to Rabi 2002 as Exh.D-2 and closed the evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are against law and facts of the case. Both the judgments are based on surmises and conjectures. These judgments were passed without application of judicial mind and are based on misreading or non-reading of evidence. Learned counsel further contended that the suit is within time; that petitioners father Muhammad Shukre Alam intends to distribute the land amongst his children equally; that petitioners are in physical possession of the land in dispute. Learned counsel submitted that the father of the petitioners is a benamidar and witnesses have fully proved the transaction in the name of respondent as benami so father of the petitioners was real owner of the disputed land.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length.
8. Learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Chichawatni in his judgment dated 7.9.2009 has discussed at length each and every issue after appraisal of evidence and reached at a right and correct decision and dismissed the suit. The learned Additional District Judge, Chichawatni has also dismissed the appeal of the father of the petitioners that they failed to prove the respondent as benamidar.
9. There are concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners which cannot be disturbed unless some misreading or non-reading is pointed out, for which the petitioners failed. I am fortified from the Judgments of the Hobble Supreme Court in the case of "Aurangzeb v. Muhammad Jaffa( (2007 SCM R 236(a), "Aurangezeb v. Muhammad Jaffe' (2007 SCM R 236 (j), "Shafi Muhammad v.
Khanzada Guf' (2007 SCM R 368 (a), "Muhammad Khaqan v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi' (2007 PSC 1496 (a), (2008 SCM R 428 (a). This civil revision having no force is dismissed in limine.
Civil revision .