'MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.---This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge Dadyal dated 18-5-2011, through which an appeal filed by the present appellants was dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant appear are that one Manga the predecessor of the present respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration against the present appellants/defendants in the court of Civil Judge Dadyal regarding the land measuring 18 Kanals and 3 Marlas bearing Khewat No, 2/2 Khata No, 4/4 situated at Village Raipur Teshil Dadyal. After the death of the said Manga, the respondents/plaintiffs were impleaded as plaintiffs being legal heirs. It was stated in the suit that the plaintiffs are owners to the extent of half share in the disputed land, but the present appellants/defendants Nos. 1 to 3 with connivance of defendants Nos. 4 to 7 got endorsement of entries in the record of rights pertaining to the years 1979-1980 as one share in the names of the respondents/ plaintiffs in the column of ownership, which was null and void over the rights of the respondents/plaintiffs. It was prayed to set aside the said entries and to direct defendants Nos. 4 to 7 to correct the entries in the record to the extent of half of the shares.
3. The present appellants/defendants submitted written statement, stating therein that the plaintiffs have no cause of action; the suit is not maintainable in the present shape and has been filed beyond the period of limitation. It was further stated that the suit is hit by the principle of estoppel and the court has got no jurisdiction to hear the suit. It was prayed to dismiss the suit.
Issues were framed in accordance with the version of the parties. Both the parties produced evidence on their behalf. After hearing the parties the learned Civil Judge Dadyal decreed the suit as it was prayed.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the present appellants/defendants preferred an appeal before Additional District Judge Dadyal. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Judge Dadyal partially accented the appeal amending the judgment and deCree to the extent of the direction to Revenue officials for correction of the Revenue Record setting aside the said direction. The remaining judgment and decree was upheld. Feeling dissatisfied, the present appellants preferred the instant second appeal before this court.
5. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Raja HabibUllah Khan Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that a Civil Court . Has got no, jurisdiction to pass a decree regarding determination of shares or to correct the entries regarding shares. No consequential relief has been prayed tor. The learned counsel requested to accept the appeal.
6. While controverting the learned counsel for the appellants, Ch. Mumtaz Hussain Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the matter in hand pertains to determination of rights of the parties regarding the disputed land, so the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to hear the suit. It was further stated that the learned Additional District Judge Dadyal has recorded his findings in accordance with the provisions of law, which need no interference by this Court. The learned counsel referred the following precedents in support of his arguments.
' 2011 SCR 211 ' PLD 2004 AJ&K 39 ' An unreported case titled as. Mst. Zameer Begum and others v. Shakeela Begum and others decided by the apex Court on 10-1-2011 (Civil Appeal No, 88/06).
7. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record and the precedents referred minutely. The record reveals that the present appellants have stated through the written statement that the respondents/plaintiffs are not owners of the disputed land to the extent of half of the shares., but one of the appellanis/defendants has admitted through the statement before the court that Mohkam Din and Hashmat Ali were real brothers who were owners of Khewat No,
2. It was also admitted by him that the present appellants and the respondents are owners of the disputed land to the extent of half of the equal shares each. The Revenue Record also corroborates this version that both the parties are owners of die disputed land having equal shares. The witnesses produced by the present respondents/ plaintiffs fully corroborate the said version. The record reveals that Misl-e-Haqiat Exh.
PC and record of rights pertaining to the years 1979-1980 and 2007-2008 show adverse entries to the record of rights pertaining to the year 1975-1976. The present appellants did not produce any proof that the said entries were in accordance with the provisions of law and facts. So it was rightly observed by both of the subordinate courts that the said entries were not made in accordance with the provisions of law.
8. The record also reveals that the respondents/plaintiffs got knowledge of the wrong entries when the disputed land was acquired for Mangla Dam Raising Project. The respondents/plaintiffs obtained the copy of record of rights pertaining to the year 1975-76. On 14-7-2007. The respondents/plaintiffs submitted an application before the Collector of. The District on which the respondents/plaintiffs were directed to approach the Civil Court on 29-6-2007. Thereafter, the respondents/ plaintiffs filed the suit under appeal on 17-7-2007,. Which was filed within prescribed period of limitation.
9. The moot point to be resolved was regarding the jurisdiction of Civil Court. The present appellants/defendants raised this objection through their written statement that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit because no Civil Court has jurisdiction to issue any direction regarding correction of the Revenue Record. It is an admitted principle of law that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to hear, determine and adjudicate a cause by exercising their judicial powers and authority. The Civil Courts have been granted general jurisdiction to try all the suits .Of civil nature unless their cognizance is specifically or impliedly barred. The court has to consider the facts alleged in the plaint for the. Purpose of determining the question of jurisdiction. Where the jurisdiction of Civil Court is expressly C barred and conferred upon special tribunal or forum, civil court being court of ultimate jurisdiction has the jurisdiction to examine the acts of such forum whether the acts are in accordance with law and the limits conferred to the said forum by such law. The court has to examine that whether acts are illegal, mala fide or contrary to principle of natural justice.. In such like situation the Civil Court can set-aside such acts.
10. The respondents/plaintiffs have challenged the entries of Revenue Record on the ground that those were not made in accordance with the previous record and the provisions of law. Had the respondents/ plaintiffs challenged the entries of the Revenue Record without alleging the facts, then section 172 of Land Revenue_ Act should have come in operation and in that case civil Court .Had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. But the respondents/ plaintiffs have challenged the wrong entries on the grounds which attract the jurisdiction of the civil courts and no ouster clause is attracted. This principle has also been laid down by the apex Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in the above cited precedent titled as Mst. Zameer Begum and others v. Shakeela Begum and others decided on 10-1-2011 (Civil Appeal No, 88 of 2006). So, it is crystal clear that the civil court has got jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit under appeal. It is also an admitted principle of law that no direction to the Revenue officials can be issued by the civil court but the Revenue officials are bound to follow and obey the observations made by any civil court. The above-mentioned principles have been reiterated in the other precedents referred by the learned counsel for the respondents.
' In the light of what has been discussed above, it is crystal clear that the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge Dadyal are based on sound and cogent reasons, which need to indulgence by this court. The instant appeal stands dismissed with no order as to the costs.