' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- Through this Civil Revision, the petitioners seek setting aside the judgment dated 31.01.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan as well as the order dated 19.04.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Liaqatpur District Rahim Yar Khan.
2. Brief facts giving rise to 'the filing of this Civil Revision are that the petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction on the ground that they alongwith the respondents are owners in possession of the suit land measuring 8 Kanals comprising khata No, 350 according to the record of rights for the year 1990-91 situated in Mauza Jampur Tehsil Liaqatpur District Rahim Yar Khan. The petitioners purchased the land measuring 04 Kanals for a consideration of Rs, 80,000/- from Mst. Aqeela Khatoon through mutation No, 3439. Likewise, the respondents also purchased the land measuring 04 Kanals for a consideration of Rs, 80,000/-through mutation No, 3438 from the said Mst. Aqeela Khatoon. According to the petitioners, the parties are still co-sharer, but the respondents without having a formal partition had forcibly taken into possession the land in question. The petitioners had to file a suit for permanent injunction seeking a decree restraining the respondents from constructing wall on the valuable portion of the said land. The suit was contested by filing written statement, where after issues were framed and the evidence was recorded. The learned Trial Court vide its order dated 19.04.2001 dismissed the suit of the petitioners which finding was upheld. By the learned Additional District Judge vide its judgment dated 31.01.2002, hence this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that perusal of mutation Nos. 3438 and 3439 do not show any entry in the Kafiat Khana verifying the possession of the respective portions; that the suit for partition was filed but could not proceed as the consolidation proceedings were going on since the land in question was agriculture; that the judgment and order passed by the Courts below have been based on misreading and non-reading of evidence resulting into miscarriage of justice; that the respondents could not unilaterally alter the position, hence prays for acceptance of this civil revision.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the Court below which cannot be interfered with unless there is some grave miscarriage of justice; that there is no misreading and non-reading of evidence in passing the impugned judgment/order; that the respective parties are in possession of the portion of land and a decree for permanent injunction cannot be passed but a suit for partition should have been filed; that the Courts below have rightly recorded finding on issue No, 1 to the extent of joint khata which cannot be interfered in a provisional jurisdiction of this Court, hence prays for dismissal of the civil revision.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
6. Land in dispute is falling in the joint khata No, 350. It is also evident that the petitioners and the respondents are co-owners and both the parties purchased land measuring 04 Kanals each for a consideration of Rs, 80,000/- for each piece of land. The petitioners could not prove that they are exclusively owners in possession of the land. Both the parties are in possession of their respective share of 04 Kanals of land and there is no dispute regarding the measurement of the property.
Under the law, one co-owner cannot dispossess the other without having formally partition of the property. I place my reliance on MUHAMMAD ABID, ETC. v. NISAR AHMED (2000 SCJ 615). "Dispute relating to joint holdings. More adequate relief can be sought in way of asking for partition of disputed land in metes and bounds. In such case, plaintiff's suit for declaration with consequential relief by way of permanent injunction would be mala fide, as by seeking declaratory decree plaintiff would be both approbating and reprobating at the same time. Even otherwise concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the Courts below which cannot be interfered with. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point any misreading or non-reading 'of evidence in passing the impugned judgment/order. In this view of the matter, this civil revision having no force is dismissed. Civil revision .