' QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---Brief and essential facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that bungalow No,9 situated at D.I.Khan cantt: was the ownership of Gopi Chand and Amar Chand and was purchased by the father of the petitioner/plaintiff namely, Khan Sahib Muhammad Aslam Khan Alizai on 5-10-1933 for a sum of Rs,5,300 and the same fact was admitted by the official receiver as well through a letter dated 6-10-1933 and after the death of his father, the petitioner/plaintiff got 14/72 shares in the said bungalow and later on, the other legal heirs also gifted away their share through hibba nama/wasiqa No,195 dated 9-2-1988 to him and thus the petitioner/plaintiff became the exclusive owner in possession of the same and accordingly spent a substantial amount on the renovation and construction of the bungalow. Respondent No,5 issued notice dated 24-5-1990 to the petitioner/plaintiff for the recovery of the possession of the bungalow along with its superstructure and the value of the superstructure/material was determined as Rs,52,895 which was challenged by the petitioner/plaintiff through a civil suit on 11- 6-1990 along with an application for temporary injunction which application was turned down on 28-2-1991 and the respondents/ defendants accordingly got possession of the suit bungalow, whereafter the petitioner/plaintiff applied for withdrawal of the suit in order to bring a fresh suit which was allowed. The respondents were time and again asked to hand over the bungalow to the petitioner but to no avail, hence he filed the suit which was partially decreed for a sum of Rs,1,52,895 for the superstructure of the bungalow while the claim regarding possession of the bungalow was turned down which was appealed against and vide judgment dated 23-9-2010, the learned appellate court set aside the judgment of the learned trial court and remanded the case with the directions to frame an additional issue. Thereafter, eleven issues along with an additional issue were framed. After a full dress trial, the learned Civil Judge-Ill, D.I.Khan decreed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff only to the extent of Rs,1,52,895 for the value of the superstructure of the suit bungalow and disallowed his claim for the possession of the bungalow vide judgment and decree dated 28-10-2010. The appeal preferred against the same also met the same fate and was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, D.I.Khan vide judgment and decree dated 17- 12-2012, hence the instant revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the judgments of both the courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that admittedly the father of the petitioner had purchased the bungalow in question from Gopi Chand and Amar Chand as far back as on 5- 10-1933 and after his death, the same devolved on his legal heirs including the petitioner, whereafter the other legal heirs transferred their shares to the petitioner and he became the sole owner of the bungalow and that all through these decades, the respondents never interfered in the ownership cum possession firstly of the father of the petitioner and later on with that of the petitioner himself; that initially the stance taken by the respondents was that the bungalow was acquired by them for defence purposes but after taking its illegal possession from the petitioner, the same was demolished; that the bungalow was initially leased out by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and later on by the petitioner to the food department and used to receive its monthly rent and during the course of evidence, P.W.2 on behalf of the food department produced all the relevant record including the execution of the rent deed on behalf of the petitioner; that the application of the petitioner for producing secondary evidence was not properly and judicially disposed of by the learned lower forum; that the respondents in their cross examination admitted the ownership of the father of the petitioner but the same was not properly looked into by both the courts below in the judgments and decrees impugned herein; that no local commission was appointed by the learned trial judge to assess the actual value of the superstructure so raised on the bungalow but a token amount of Rs,1,52,895 was assessed as its value and, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside and the suit of the petitioner be decreed in his favour.
3. Arguments heard and available record perused.
4. The petitioner claims the ownership of the suit bungalow on the basis of its purchase by his father namely, Khan Sahib Muhammad Aslam Khan Alizai way back in 1933 for an amount of Rs,5,300 from Gopi Chand and Amar Chand and that the said fact was also admitted by the official receiver vide letter bearing No,284 dated 6-10-1933 and that after the death of the petitioner's father, initially the petitioner was held entitled to 14/72 shares in the bungalow, whereafter through gift deed bearing Wasiqa No,195 dated 9-2-1988, the petitioner became the full owner in possession of the bungalow, whereafter he made improvements and renovations in the same by spending huge amount from his own pocket. On receipt of notice dated 24-5-1990 from respondent No,5 regarding possession of the bungalow along with its superstructure, the same was challenged by the petitioner in the civil court which suit was partially decreed in his favour to the extent of Rs,1,52,895 being the value of the superstructure of the bungalow and the possession was denied to him, whereafter he challenged the same before the appellate court and the matter was remanded to the trial court for framing an additional issue.
5. In support of his stance, the petitioner appeared before the trial court as P. W.1 in respect of the additional issue as before remand, the parties had produced their respective evidence. P.W.1 is the statement of registry moharrir followed by the statement of Muhammad Ramzan, District Accounts Food Office (P.W.2), Abdul Hanan, assistant food office (P.W.3) and petitioner himself appeared as, P.W.3A. Except for claiming the bungalow as the ownership of his father through oral assertion, the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence in this regard and stuck to the contents of his plaint that the actual owners of the bungalow were Gopi Chand and Amar Chand from whom his father had purchased the same. During cross examination in his statement as P.W.3A, he admitted as correct that the land underneath the bungalow was acquired by his father on lease for a term of 99 years being old grant. This candid admission on behalf of the petitioner puts to naught his ownership claim of the bungalow as his father had only lease hold rights over the property and the case of the petitioner could be no better or different than that. The same also verifies the fact that the actual owner of the property was none other but the central government.
Thus after the death of late Khan Sahib Muhammad Aslam Khan Alizai, when his legacy in the form of the bungalow devolved on his legal heirs A including the petitioner, they too, enjoyed the status of lease holders or for that matter licencees on behalf of the central government. P.W.2 and P.W.3 being officials of the food department deposed to the effect that the petitioner had rented out the bungalow to the department but that too, could be of no help to him viz. The ownership of the bungalow. DW-1 on his turn exhibited an extract of the GLR as Exh.DW 1/2 and Exh.DW 1/3 according to which, the property/bungalow belongs to the central government or for that matter the ministry of defence and that earlier late Khan Sahib Muhammad Aslam Khan and subsequently his legal heirs including the petitioner had the possession of the bungalow as lessees. The said DW also produced Exh.DW 1/4 being a copy of the admission deed of late Khan Sahib Muhammad Aslam.
Khan whereby he admitted the land to be the ownership of the federal government/defence department. Exh.DW 1/5 is still another admission deed whereby the legal heirs of late Khan Sahib Muhammad Aslam Khan admitted the ownership of the federal government over the suit bungalow. The notice to the legal heirs of late Khan Sahib Muhammad Aslam Khan for the resumption of the suit land was prompted by the need to use the property for departmental purposes and the value of the superstructure was assessed through M.E.S (Military Engineering Services) as Rs,1,52,895. Despite being subjected to cross examination, the said DW stood c his ground viz. The ownership of the suit land as well as the value of the superstructure. All these aspects with its details have been duly attended to by both the courts below in the impugned judgments which being based on proper appreciation of evidence and D material available on record warrant no interference at the revisional stage.
6. The learned two courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts which are based on sound application of evidence available on the file. The same cannot be set at naught unless it is proved that the same are either perverse or erroneous in view of the dicta handed down in the cases of Abdur Rahim and another v. Mst. Jantay Bibi and others (2000 SCMR 346), Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291) and Muhammad Rasheed Ahmad v. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 2002 SC 293).
7. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant revision petition being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed in limine.