' MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.---This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of District Judge Bhimber dated 29-12-2011, through which an appeal filed by the present appellants was dismissed and judgment and decree passed by Senior Civil Judge Bhimber was upheld.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the present respondent No, l/plaintff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present appellants/defendants in the court of Senior Civil Judge Bhimber, stating therein that the plaintiff is an owner in the village Kas Chanater and in possession of the land measuring 03 Kanals out of the land measuring 25 Kanals bearing survey No,3281 min Khewat No,139 Khata Nos. 1432/1370 situated at village Kas Chanater since long. Now, the appellants/defendants want to snatch possession of the said land, to cut trees, to make construction, want to destroy fencing around the land and also want to transfer the said land. It was prayed to issue a decree for permanent injunction against the present appellants/ defendants.
3. Appellants/defendants submitted written statement, stating therein that the disputed land is a Shamlat Deh land, which has not been, partitioned yet. The respondent/plaintiff has got no cause of action. It was prayed to dismiss the suit. Issues were framed and the parties were directed to produce evidence on their behalf. After hearing the parties, the learned Senior Civil Judge issued a decree for permanent injunction against the present appellants/defendants regarding the disputed land as prayed by the respondent/plaintiff Muhammad Hussain. Feeling dissatisfied, the present appellants preferred an appeal before District Judge Bhimber. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge Bhimber dismissed the appeal and maintained the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Bhimber. Hence, the instant second appeal.
4. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties who only repeated their version as taken in the pleadings. The learned counsel for the appellants referred the precedent 2009 SCR 158 in support of his arguments.
5. After hearing the arguments, I have gone through the record and the precedent referred carefully. It is an admitted fact that the disputed land is ghamlat Deh about which the civil Courts have limited jurisdiction and cannot grant permanent injunction against all the share holders who possess the land in the, estate as well. It has been held in the precedent 2009 SCR 158 that unless the Shamlat Deh land was partitioned by metes and bounds by revenue authorities, no specific share can be declared to be in possession of any landowner. In the said case of the precedent the Hon'ble apex Court of AJ&K modified the decree in favour of the party in possession.
6. As far the merits of the case are concerned, the respondent/ plaintiff Muhammad Hussain produced oral and documentary evidence in support his version. The revenue record, a copy of record of right pertaining to year 2003-04 Exh. PA and copies of khasra Girdawari pertaining to the years 2008 and 2010 Exh. PB,PC and PD corroborate the version of the plaintiff. The witnesses of the respondent/plaintiff also state that the respondent along with his two brothers is in possession of the disputed land and he has bounded the disputed land through a fence. Although, the present appellants/defendants produced witnesses in their favour who stated that the appellants are in possession of the disputed land but could not place reliable revenue record in their favour. The available record reflects clearly that the present respondents are in possession of the disputed land and both the subordinate courts have recorded their findings in accordance with the provisions of law regarding possession of the disputed land, which need indulgence of this court only to the extent that the judgment recorded by the trial court shall be enforceable inter-party and not against other share holders in Shamlat nor the same shall be binding on the revenue authorities who have jurisdiction to work out the share in the Shamlat according to the holding of land owners in village or estate. The judgment and decree is modified to the extent indicated.
' In the light of what has been discussed above, the present appeal 1 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.