' SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---Liaqat Shah, respondent/ plaintiff instituted suit against Noor-ul-Haq and others petitioners/defendants for permanent injunction to the effect that he is owner in possession of the residential, property and a vacant plot measuring 1 Kanal, 7 Marla comprising in Khasra No,2922, Khata No,272 through registered deed No,94 dated 15-9-2007 and the petitioners/defendants have got no right to demolish the old' construction, occupy the vacant plot forcibly or to raise new construction and incorporate it in his abadi without partition. He also sought for mandatory injunction against the petitioners/defendants.
2. The suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants by filing written statement wherein they denied the claim of the respondent/plaintiff and divergent pleadings of the parties gave birth to as many as 12 issues including the relief. After recording pro and contra evidence of the parties and hearing their learned counsel, the learned Civil Judge-I, Tangi vide his judgment and decree dated 22-7-2011 decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners/defendants before the learned Additional District Judge, Shabqadar Camp Court at Tangi who vide his judgment and decree dated 21-1-2013 disposed off it with the following manner:- "Pursuant to what has been discussed above, it has become clear that both the parties are joint owners of the suit property and each of them cannot raise construction on joint property unless and until the same has been legally partitioned or without the express consent of other.
' In view of above, findings of the learned trial Court on issues Nos.8 to 10 are hereby maintained, however, with modification with respect to issue No,9 that the defendants have also proved ownership of the property through Deed No,933 dated 18-9-2007.
' In light of my decision and discussion on issues Nos. 8 to 10, findings of the learned lower Court are also maintained on all other remaining issues.
' As corollary to my above discussion and decision on different issues, the judgment and decree dated 22-7-2011 of the learned Civil Judge-I, Tangi is hereby maintained with modification with respect to issue No,9 and appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs".
3. Still feeling aggrieved from the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, the petitioners/defendants have filed the instant revision petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants and have also gone through the available on file.
5. The claim of the respondent/ plaintiff is that he is co-owner in possession of the residential property and also vacant plot through registered Deed No,94 dated 15-9-2007 and thereafter Mutation No,1920 was attested in his favour while the claim of the petitioners/defendants is that they are also owners in possession of the suit property through sale registered Deed No,933 dated 18-9-2007. In order to prove his claim, the respondent/plaintiff examined Mukhtiar Ahmad Patwari Halqa as P.W.1 who produced fard Jamabandi for the year 2003-2004 with regard to suit khasras number, Mutation No, 1920, Khasra Girdawari from Kharif, 2000 to Kharif 2009 and fard Jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 which are Exh.P.W.1/1 to Exh.P.W.1/4. He had deposed that Mutation No,1920 was entered and attested on the basis of registered Deed No,94 dated 15-9-2007. He further deposed that share of the respondent/plaintiff in the suit property is one Kanal seven Marlas while he is in possession of only one Kanal of land on the spot. Alam Noor appeared as attorney of the respondent/plaintiff who supported the claim of the respondent/plaintiff and contents of the plaint.
On the other hand the defendant/petitioner No,1 Noorul Haq appeared as DW.1 and deposed that he had purchased the house through registered deed dated 18-9-2007 for a sale consideration of Rs,5,50,000 from Mian Shah Jehan and since then he is residing in it as owner. He further deposed that the respondent/plaintiff is still tenant of the said Mian Shah Jehan. Mian Sohrab Gul appeared as D.W.2 who deposed that his father Mian Shah Jehan out of his property had sold two places measuring 22 marlas to petitioner/defendant No,1 for sale consideration of Rs,5,50,000 and to this effect his father had executed a sale-deed dated 18-9-2007 in his favour which correctly bears the signature of his father. Musharaf Shah marginal witness of the deed dated 18-9-2007 Exh.DW1/2 appeared as D.W. 3 and deposed that the said deed correctly bears his thumb-impressed as well as the thumb-impression another marginal witness namely Haji Palis and the signature of the vendor Mian Shah Jehan.
6. Perusal of the record clearly indicates that the respondent/plaintiff has proved his claim that he had purchased the land in dispute measuring one Kanal, seven Marlas from one Mst.Nasreen wife of Mian Younis through registered Deed No,94 dated 15-9-2007 and on the basis of the said deed Mutation No,1920 was also attested in his favour. So far as the claim of the petitioners/defendants is concerned, they have also successfully established the same by producing Sohrab Gul DW2 and Musharaf Shah D.W.3. Sohrab Gul DW2 is the son of Mian Shah Jehan who was the owner of the houses/property in dispute. He had clearly stated that his father had sold out of two places measuring 22 Marlas to petitioner/defendant No,1 for a sale consideration of Rs,5,50,000 through sale-deed dated 18-9-2007 and he correctly identified the signature of his father on the said deed.
Musharaf Shah DW-3 is the marginal witness of the said deed Exh.DW-1/2 who had deposed that the deed Exh.DW-1/2 correctly bears his thumb- A impression as well as the thumb-impression of Haji Palis another marginal witness as well as the signature of Mian Shah Jehan. Thus the execution of the deed Exh.DW-1/2 in favour of the petitioners/ defendants has also been established from the statements of the above two witnesses that the petitioner/defendant No,1 had purchased the property in question on the basis of the above deed.
7. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the learned appellate Court below after proper appreciation of evidence on record has rightly resolved the controversy between the parties in the shape of modifying the finding on issue No, 9 while holding the petitioners/defendants as owners of the suit property through registered Deed No, 933 dated 18-9- 2007 Exh.DW-1/2.
8. Since no jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgments has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners before this court to have been committed by the learned appellate court below in the impugned judgment and decree and I am perfectly conscious of the fact that this court as a rule should give due weight and consideration to the opinion of the Courts below and in particularly to the opinion of the court of first instance which had the advantage of hearing the parties, witnesses and watching their demeanour. Generally this court does not interfere with the findings of fact reached by the primary courts when it is satisfied that the findings of the courts below are as a whole reasonable and are not arrived at by disregarding any provisions of law or any accepted principle concerning the appreciation of the evidence.
9- Thus, in view of the above discussion, keeping in view the provision of section 115, C.P.C., I find no substance in the instant revision petition and therefore, the same being totally devoid of force is hereby dismissed in limine along with C.M. No,383-P of 2013.