' SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---This single judgment shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing C.R. No,785 of 2004, filed by Bahadur Khan and C.R. No,1084 of 2004, preferred by Dr. Usman Ali etc., as both arise from one and the same judgment dated 23-4-2004 passed by Additional District Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi-IV, District Swat, whereby the appellate Court below while accepting the appeals, set aside the judgment and decree dated 31-1-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi-III, District Swat.
2. Brief and essential facts leading to the present controversy are that Usman Ali etc. Instituted a suit bearing No,381/1 for declaration to the effect that they are owners "24 Paisa Dautar" land while their uncle Bahadur Khan is the owner to the extent of "36 Paisa Dautar" land, which has been wrongly entered in the name of respondent. The present petitioner also filed a suit bearing No,382/1, claiming therein that the disputed property is his ownership, which has wrongly been entered in the name of defendant- respondents herein.
' Both the rival sides filed their respective written statements. The learned trial Court, consolidated both the suits after framing of consolidated issues, recording pro and contra evidence decreed both the suits vide judgment and decree dated 31-1-2003.
' Feeling aggrieved from the afore-said judgment and decree of the trial Court, both the parties preferred appeals before the lower appellate Court below. The learned Additional District Judge- IV/Izafi Zilla Qazi, Swat, after hearing arguments of both the sides, accepted the appeals, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and consequently, dismissed the suits. Needless to mention here that the abovementioned suits were dismissed in the earlier round of litigation between the parties vide order/judgment and decree dated 8-2-2002 against which appeals were preferred before the learned appellate Court below and the said Court vide judgment dated 20-9- 2002 accepted those appeals, set aside the judgments and decrees of the trial Court and remanded the case to the trial Court for decision afresh on merits. Thereafter the suits were consolidated, consolidated, issues were framed and then after pro and contra evidence, the learned trial Court decreed both the suits which were assailed by way of appeal before the lower appellate Court and the said Court vide judgment and decree impugned herein, accepted the appeal of the respondents herein and as a consequence whereof dismissed both the suits, hence the present revision petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent is admittedly Gujar' by caste and under the Riwal' of the area, they are tenants of, the Pakhtoons'; that during the settlement, the respondent joined hands with the revenue authority and deprived the petitioner of the disputed property; that the wrong entries in the revenue record in the name of respondent as an owner are liable to be corrected; that the appellate Court below has arrived at an erroneous conclusion while deciding the controversy; that keeping in view the admitted position of the record, there was no justification for the learned lower appellate Court to upset the well-reasoned findings delivered by the learned trial Court.
' On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned findings of the lower appellate Court below and contended that burden of proof was on petitioners-plaintiffs to have proved their stance through cogent, reliable and conclusive evidence, but they have failed to discharge this burden. He further argued that in the event of conflict of judgments, findings of appellate Court are to be preferred, unless it is shown from the record that such findings are not supported by evidence that the conclusions drawn by the learned Court are against the material on record; that the findings of appellate Court neither suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence, nor the reasons recorded for reversal of judgment of the trial Court are arbitrary, fanciful and perverse. In this regard, he placed reliance on 2008 SCM R 398, "Muhammad Hafeez and another v. District Judge, Karachi 'East and another" 1999 CLC 422 Karachi "Sampat and another v.
Sufaid Khan and others". The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the longstanding entries in the name of respondent, made in the settlement record carried out in the year 1985-1986 enjoying much more presumption of truth as attached to the record of rights. In this regard, he relied on 1997 SCM R 1840, "Nawab Khan and others v: Said Karim Khan and others", 200!
SCMR 363, "Haji Allah Bakhsh v. Abdullah Khan, and others" and 1991 M LD 25 (Peshawar). "Habibullah Jan and others v. M. Hassan Khan and others". He further contended that a plaintiff in a suit has to stand on his own footings and cannot take advantage or benefit of the weakness of the defendant's plea. To this effect, he placed reliance on PLD 1995 Supreme Court 351(e), "Mian lqbal Mahmood Banday v. Muhammad Sadiq, 2007 CLC 39, "Rana Shaukat Mahmood and another v.
Rana Muhammad Tajammal Hussain and others" and 1989 CLC 227 [Peshawar], "Abdul Manan and another v. Mir Nawaz Khan and 4 others".
4. In the light of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, record was thoroughly scanned, which revealed that from the very beginning, it remained the stance of the petitioners- plaintiffs that the disputed property is their "Dautary" (ancestral property), while respondents belong to Gujar' caste and are in possession of the suit property as their tenants, but it is admitted fact that first settlement in District Swat has been carried out in year 1986, in which entries regarding ownership of the said property were made in the name of respondents. Usman Ali, when appeared as P.W.2, deposed that he has no documentary proof that respondents are his tenants since 1949 and that he is receiving the produce of disputed property. He has also deposed that Shah Bali Khan, P.W.4, collects the produce of disputed property and handover the same to his uncle Bahadur Khan, while he receives produce to the extent of his share, but Shah Bali Khan, when appeared as P.W.4, has not at all supported this stance of the petitioner-plaintiff. Perusal of record would further reveal that plaintiffs of both the suits have tried to base their claims on oral evidence, which is neither convincing, nor cogent to substantiate their claim and on the other hand, according to revenue record available on file, longstanding entries exist A in the said revenue record in the name of respondents regarding the suit property right from first settlement record of right carried out in the year 1986 and these longstanding entries in favour of respondents in the revenue record cannot be disturbed because presumption of truth is attached to these entries in this regard, the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent attracts to the facts and circumstances of the present case and can be taken into consideration for just decision of the controversy between the parties.
' Moreover, appraisal of oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties leads me to draw a conclusion that the learned lower appellate Court below has rightly passed the impugned, order/judgment and decree, which is based on proper appraisal of evidence on record and is thus well-founded. Impugned order/judgment and decree neither suffers from miscarriage of justice, nor is the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence on record. Likewise, I find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment/ order and decree of the lower appellate Court to warrant interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
' Resultantly, I find no scope to interfere in the judgment of learned appellate Court below and the same being well-reasoned and well-founded is maintained. Both the revision petitions, being devoid of force, are dismissed.