1. ' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN, ACTG. C. J.-This first appeal is made from the judgment dated 16-7-1978 of the learned District Judge, Mangla Dam, Mirpur by which the reference brought by the applicants-appellants was dismissed. That reference arose out of the award of the property in dispute drawn by the Collector, Mangla Dam, Mirpur under No, 277 dated 26-7-1966. The property under reference is measuring 53 kanals and 9 marlas.
2. ' The compensation was awarded to the respondents as per entries of the revenue record viz. 'Missal Haqiat' pertaining to the settlement made by the Mangla Dam Authorities and record-of- rights pertaining to the year 1993-94 Bk. Which was simply brought forward to the year 1957-58 by the Mangla Dam Authorities at the time of settlement conducted by the said authorities for the purposes of acquiring land for construction of Mangla Dam. The land comprises two `Khewats' viz. 53 and 54 measuring 107 kanals, 9 marlas and they are shown as jointly owned by the parties in half and half. Out of this joint property almost half of the land was sold by the forefathers of the appellants (only less by marlas). Survey No, 246 measuring 10 kanals and 18 marlas was mortgaged to a Hindu woman during the Dogra Regime by Hassan Mohammad father of Muhammad Nazir appellant. It was got redeemed by Mohammad Nazir appellant and its compensation was in a way also received by the appellants thereby excluding the respondents. It was why that out of half of the land from Khewat No, 53, this much land appears to have been deducted alongwith a little bit of more land, that is to say, that compensation of 41 kanals and 11 marlas was awarded to the respondents as per record, and over and above the same, that is, compensation of 55 kanals and 13 marlas was awarded to the vendees of the lands from `Khewat'
3. No, 53 and remaining was awarded to the appellants including one Muhammad Hussain, a co- owner. The lands from the joint `Khewats' of the parties were sold either by the applicants or their forefathers thereby leaving only 1i marlas of land. The respondents' names are also found entered as co-owners in that half of the land from the disputed Khewats which was sold by the applicants or their forefathers. In other words, it is on record that the names of the parties exist jointly in both halves. One of the halves was sold by the appellants, obviously from their possession and the remaining half had also been in their possession throughout till it was acquired by the Government.
4. ' It could not be established by the respondents in any manner that the appellants had ever been their tenants-at-will on payment of 'Ghala Batai'. The revenue record shows that the appellants had been in possession of the land in dispute as owners and were cultivating the same as such.
5. Sajawal Hussain Shah and Sharif Hussain Shah are the persons who were produced to say that the appellants were in possession of the land in dispute as tenants-at-will on payment of 'Ghala Bate- but they were not able to convince that it had ever been such a case. Sajawal Hussain Shah says that Sharif Hussain Shah used to take `Ghala Batai' but Sharif Hussain Shah himself does not say so.
6. He states that Hafeez Ali Shah's descendants used to receive `Ghala Batai' but none of them could have come forward to prove as such in rebuttal to the stand of the appellants that they had been in possession of the land in dispute as owners and had been deriving the benefit as such. It was told by Sharif Hussain Shah himself that 10 kanals or more of land out of the land under reference in which the respondents had the interest was sold by Hassan Mohammad father of the appellants.
7. And it seems that it was so done by him long before the year 1993-94 Bk. And no steps were taken by the respondents to get the transfer nullified. Out of `Khewat' No, 53, land measuring 53 kanals and 13 marlas were sold by the forefathers of the appellants and Survey No, 246 measuring 10 kanals and 18 marlas was mortgaged to Mst. Dhan Vati a Hindu woman during the Dogra Ragime by the father of the appellants. This land was also got redeemed by the appellants claiming the same as their own. All these acts of the appellants or their forefathers show that they had always been treating the land in dispute as their own because they had been keeping the same under their possession as owners. Land under `Khewat' No, 54 had practically been in the ownership of the appellants to which no claim, whatsoever, could be made by the respondents till it was acquired by the Government. That being so, an overt act on the part of the appellants in claiming the ownership of the same had clearly been established by way of prescription. The contention of the appellants that the land in dispute was treated by them as their own property till it was acquired by the Government from their possession and it was fully enjoyed by them since the times of their forefathers stands proved. On the other hand, the respondents have failed to take any steps against the appellants to oust them from the property in dispute. The statutory period for establishment of adverse possession of the appellants over the land in reference becomes established. The revenue record vide Exh. P. A. To Exh. P. H. Which is supported by the revenue officials, particularly by Munshi Bostan Khan Patwari. Oral evidence of the appellants is also to the effect that the appellants and their forefathers had been in possession of the land in suit as owners and nothing of co-sharer ship of the respondents was ever admitted by them. The transfer of the land from the joint `Khewats' ignoring the names of the respondents appearing therein clearly is an overt act of the appellants and their forefathers that they had never admitted the respondents as co-owners in the `Khewats' in question.
8. ' Though it could not be made clear by either party that how the names of the respondents or their forefathers were entered as co-owners in the said `Khewats' yet one thing is clear beyond any doubt that the applicants had been treating the land in reference as their own and respondents appear to have yielded to their claim, i,e, claim in the sense that they (appellants) had been cultivating the land as their own and were even giving the same to the tenants-at-will to cultivate on their behalf and not on behalf of the respondents as was wrongly claimed by the latter.
9. ' Under these circumstances of the case, we feel that the learned District Judge was unable to appreciate the evidence led by the parties. Evidently the fact of sale of the land measuring 53 kanals and 13 marlas out of `Khewat' No, 53 supports the claim of the appellants that they had been treating the entire land comprising `Khewat' No, 53 as their own and it was why that the possession of the land in reference was maintained by them to the exclusion of the respondents as their own and so was the case in respect of `Khewat' No, 54.
10. ' Therefore, for the reasons above, issue in relation to adverse possession by way of prescription is decided in favour of the appellants.
11. ' That being so, this appeal is accordingly accepted and the impugned judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge, Mangla Dam, Mirpur are hereby set aside.