' KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---Through this revision petition, petitioners have impugned the judgment/decree dated 8-11-2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge-IV, D.I.Khan vide which the appeal of petitioners was dismissed by maintaining the judgment/decree passed by learned Civil Judge-VII, D.I.Khan dated 23-2-2004 vide which the suit of petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed.
2. Facts of the instant revision are that petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the respondents/defendants to the effect that the petitioners/plaintiffs, the legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Ramzan son of Ranjoo are owners of the property as purchasers measuring 17 kanals, 17 marlas bearing Khata No,332 Khatooni No,568- 569 five khasrajat, situated in Mauza Kurar Tehsil Paharpur District D.I.Khan vide jamabandi for the years 1993-1994 and the respondents/defendants have no concern with the property in suit and the Revenue Record in this respect is liable to be corrected.
3. The respondents/defendants appeared in the trial Court and submitted their written statement.
The trial Court after framing issues, directed the parties to produce their respective evidence as they wished and after hearing the arguments from both sides the suit of petitioners/ plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgment/ decree dated 23-2-2004.
4. Petitioners/plaintiffs impugned the judgment/decree of the trial Court before the learned Appellate Court, who after hearing arguments of both the sides dismissed the appeal of petitioners/plaintiffs vide judgment/decree dated 8-11-2006 and maintained the judgment/decree of the trial Court, hence the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence on record and reached to a wrong conclusion by dismissing the suit. He contended that the agreement to sell was orally but it was coupled with possession which was renewed for the payment of sale consideration with the respondents L.Rs of Haji Khuda Bakhsh. He submitted that the possession was delivered to them at the time of payment of the sale consideration and till now they are in possession of the same. He further submitted that having the possession of the suit property the question of limitation does not apply on the petitioners' case.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the respondents never sold the suit property to the petitioners and without any documentary proof regarding the sale decree cannot be granted in favour of the petitioners. He contended that the suit of the petitioners is time- barred as per their own contention as initially sale was stuck down in the year 1972 and even if consider the same for the sake of arguments that the cause of action arised to the petitioner on the basis of suit Mutation No,926 cancelled on 21-7-1991 even then suit was filed on 22-9-1997, is not within time.
7. Arguments heard and record on file perused, in the light of which my finding is as under.
8. It is clear from the record that it is oral sale and any oral sale cannot snatch the title and property of other. Moreover, in the present case the petitioners have failed to produce any documentary evidence or any entry on the basis of any 'sale-deed in the Revenue Record which suggests that the possession of the suit property was delivered to the petitioners on the basis of same sale transaction. The entries in the Revenue Record the names of the petitioners are mentioned as tenant at will {{URDU TEXT}} (':PAI; 1,/?' ). It is admitted fact that the possession of the petitioners on the property is an tenant at will and whereas tenant is always a tenant. The petitioners cannot claim their ownership on the basis of possession because they are tenant under the respondents. So far the Mutation No,926 is concerned it is entered in favour of petitioners on 21- 7-1991 even if the petitioners are presumed to have any right or claim for specific performance on the Mutation No,926, then suit should have been filed on 21-7-1991 but in the present case it has been filed by the petitioners on 22-9-1997 which is hopelessly time-barred.
9. In the light of above stated position I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the judgments/decrees passed by learned lower Courts. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is devoid of merits, therefore, dismissed.