' AZMATULLAH MALIK, J.---A suit was instituted by the petitioner for declaration to the effect that land measuring 42 kanal 10 marla comprising in khasra numbers fully detailed in the heading of the plaint situated at Kot Jungara, Tehsil Takht Bhai, District Mardan, is his ownership in possession and the respondents have no concern with the suit property, therefore, entries in favour of non- Muslims, Central Government of Pakistan and later in favour of the respondents are wrong against law and facts and are ineffective upon his rights. It is further alleged that neither he nor his predecessor-in-interest has transferred the suit property to any body, therefore, the entries in the name of the respondents in the revenue record is the result of connivance of respondents and official of the Settlement Department. The respondents were asked time and again to accept the rights of the petitioner but they refused, hence the present suit. Initially all the respondents were placed ex parte and the suit in hand was decreed ex parte in favour of the petitioner on 21-12-2005 but some of the respondents filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The learned trial Court while allowing the application, set aside the ex parte decree on 29-11-2008.
2. Respondents Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 contested the suit by filing their joint written statement herein they challenged the averments made in the plaint on many legal and factual grounds. The learned trial Court after framing the issues and giving full opportunity to the parties to produce evidence dismissed the suit of the petitioner, vide judgment dated 29-6-2009. The appeal of the petitioner there against also met the same fate having been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Mardan, on 16-4-2010 hence this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the suit property was the ownership of the predecessor of the plaintiff/petitioner and after his death the plaintiff being an alone successor of his predecessor, has become owner in possession of the suit property. The learned counsel by referring to the plaint contended that neither the predecessor of the plaintiff nor he has sold the suit property to any body but the defendants in collusion with the officials of the Settlement Department, made entries in their favour in the revenue record. The learned counsel next contended that failure of the Courts below to appreciate the evidence brought on the record by the petitioner would also militate against the bona fide and genuineness of the respondents.
The learned counsel by concluding his arguments contended that the plaintiff is owner of the suit property and that both the Courts below by failing to appreciate the evidence produced by the plaintiff petitioner failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them. The learned counsel to support his contentions placed reliance on the judgments rendered in 2008 SCMR 1384, PLD 1993 Peshawar 127, 2000 SCMR 157 and 1995 SCMR 284.
4. As against that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the property in the name of defendants/ respondents initially was the ownership of non-Muslims, was subsequently transferred in the name of the Central Government of Pakistan, vide Exh.P.W.1/1 and 1/2 and thereafter it was allotted to one Abdul Malik Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants/respondents Nos.1 to (sic).
5. The learned counsel by elaborating his arguments contended that the plaint of the petitioner being evasive in nature and is not specific with regard to his claim, he has nothing to do with the property in dispute and that no fault can be found with the judgments of the Courts below at least on this score. The learned counsel by referring to the judgment rendered in the case Mst. Zarmeena and others v. Haji Peshmeen Khan and others (PLD 2006 Peshawar 123) contended that when entries made in favour of the respondents were given effect in the record of rights then the presumption of truth and correctness would arise in respect of such entries. The learned counsel to support his contentions placed reliance on the judgments rendered in the cases of Muhammad and 9 others v. Hasham Ali (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 271), Muhammad Yar v. Mst. Mat Sultana (2000 MLD Lahore 531), Intikhab Ahmad Khan and 2 others v. Muhammad Rafique Khan and others (2003 YLR Lahore 1953), Muhammad Rafflq and others v. Muhammad All and others (2004 SCMR 704), Muhammad Khan v. Faqir Hussain Khan and 3 others (1989 SCMR 1164), Hakim Khan v. Nazeer Ahmad Lughmani and 10 others 1992 SCMR 1832), Muhammad Masood Abbasi v. Mst. Mamona Abbasi (2004 YLR Lahore 432) and Nazir Ahmad and another v. M. Muzaffar Hussain (2008 SCMR 1639).
6. I have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. A perusal of the record shows that the property in the, name of defendants/respondents was initially the ownership of non-Muslims, subsequently transferred in the name of the Central Government of Pakistan, vide Exh.P.W.1/1 and 1/2 and then it was allotted to one Abdul Malik Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants/ respondents Nos.1 to 6. No doubt the defendants have failed to bring anything on record to show in black and white that how the property in question had been allotted to their predecessor Abdul Malik Khan, but this lapse on the part of the defendants does not give any benefit to the plaintiff unless he has to prove his case on the strength of his own evidence. When it not the case of the petitioner that in fact the suit property was wrongly entered in favour of non-Muslims and subsequently transferred to the Central Government of Pakistan, the defendants have rightly claimed the ownership over the suit property. The Patwari halqa while examining as P.W.1 in the Court has also denied the status of the petitioner as owner of the suit property on the strength of what he alleged in the plaint. Rather he confirmed that the respondents according to the revenue record 'Fard' Jamabandi of the year 1991-92, Exh.P.W.2/1 and 'Fard'
Jamabandi of the year, 2002-2003 Exh.P.W.1/3 are the owners in possession of the suit land.
Strangely enough the plaintiff in support of his claim did not appear in the Court as his own witness. Instead, one Musharaf Khan, appeared as P.W.4 as attorney of the plaintiff in spite of the fact that the plaintiff remained in the village and was capable to appear before the Court to support his claim absented himself without assigning any reason and the attorney also confirmed in his statement that--- {{urdu Text}} II- ' which admission of P.W.4 and the conduct of the plaintiff clearly shows that the suit was brought without any proof of ownership. When so, I do not think, the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the Courts below do suffer from any mis-reading or non-reading of evidence nor there was any jurisdictional error in the judgments of the Courts below, hence both the Courts below have rightly non-suited the petitioner. The judgments rendered in 2008 SCMR 1384, PLD 1993 Peshawar 127, 2000 SCMR 157 and 1995 SCMR 284 (Supra) cited at the bar being distinguishable on factual plain are not relevant to the case in hand.
8. For the reasons discussed above, this revision petition being without substance is dismissed.