' This petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeks revision of the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Lyallpur (now Faisalabad), dated the 19th June, 1973, affirming in appeal the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Lyallpur (now Faisalabad), dated the 29th July, 1969, whereby the petitioners' suit for a declaration that they were owners and in possession of the land in dispute with a prayer for issuance of permanent injunction restraining the respondedts from interfering with their possession was dismissed.
2. Nazar Ali, Asghar Ali, Barkat All and Haider Ali, sons of Ali Gohar, were owners of 433 kanals, 6 marlas, of land bearing squares Nos. 25 and 26 situate in the area of Chak No, 61/GB, Tehsil Jaranwala, District Faisalabad. Haider Ali died issueless about 38 years before the institution of suit giving rise to the present revision petition. His widow, Mst. Nazar Bibi, succeeded as limited owner under custom to his estate comprising of 1/4th share of the above-mentioned two squares of land.
On the 15th February, 1935, soon after her succession, she willed away the land to which she had succeeded in favour of Nazar Ali, Asghar All and Barkat Ali, brothers of his deceased husband, by means of the registered deed of will, Exh. She died on the 14th April, 1951. Though Nazar Ali. Asghar Ali and Ali claimed the entire land which she had held as limited owner on the basis of the aforementioned will yet Mutation (No, 143, copy Exh. P. 4) touching inheritance to that land was sanctioned on the 9th October, 1952, according to Muslim Personal Law as by that time the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948, had come into force to regulate the incidents of inheritance. One-fourth of the land held by her was inherited by the respondents, who are her brothers and sisters, and the remaining 3/4th went to Nazar Ali, Asghar All and Barkat Ali.
3. On the 6th November, 1966, Nazar Ali, Asghar All and Barkat All filed suit against the respondents for a declaration that they were owners and in possession of the land in dispute which was inherited by the respondents from Mst. Nazar Bibi and asked for issuance of perpetual injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfer ing with their possession. They based their claim of ownership on the will executed by Msr. Nazar Bibi in their favour in the alternative on their acquisition of title by prescription for having remaining in adverse possession of the land in question for more than twelve years. The respondents contested the suit. The learned trial Court held that the will executed by Mst. Nazar Bibi was invalid as she was just a limited owner of the land and, therefore, could not alienate it by will. The learned Court was of the view that being co-sharers they could not hold adversely against the other co-sharers, namely, the respondents. Therefore, it dismissed their suit on the 16th June, 1969. Their appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, on the 19th June, 1973.
4. Barkat All and Asghar All died during pendency of litigation and their Legal Representative along with Nazar Ali are petitioners in the present revision petition.
5. In the revision before this Court the learned counsel for the petitioners tried to build up case for the petitioners' claim of ownershi of the land on basis of adverse possession alone. No inference touching adverse possession can be drawn from entries of the revenue papers consisting of record-of-rights and khasra girdawaris as the respondents were also entered owners therein when the mutation in their favour was sanctioned as far back as in 1952. Mere oral statements of one of the petitioners and a few stray persons, which have been correctly appraised by the Courts below, can hardly prove the petitioners' adverse possession. Normally being co-sharers their possession vis-a-vis the respondents, who are also co-sharers under the Muslim law, cannot be treated to be adverse. The rule laid down in Mir Lalk Ali v. Granard Vacuum Oil Company (ESSO) (1) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is not pertinent to and can scarcely advance the petitioners' case because the point involved therein did not touch the principle of law that the possession of a Muslim co-sharer is the possession of other co-sharers. The judgment formulated by the learned trial as welt as the appellate Courts is unexceptable. This petition is without any force and is dismissed with costs. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1964 SC 220 {{FOOT NOTE}}