MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---Order dated 30-08-2014 that the learned District Judge Astore passed in CFA No,13/2010 and CFA No,09/2014, whereby, the learned first appellate court dismissed the appeal and order dated 30-06-2010 of the learned Civil Judge Astore, passed in Civil Suit No,22/2000, are challenged through this revision petition.
2. Petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration to the effect that petitioner/plaintiff is the owner of suit land because the suit land was property of Mr. Khan, real brother of petitioner/plaintiff, and said Mr. Khan died issue less. Suit property is in possession of defendants while petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to inherit the suit property and also is entitled to the possession of the same. As to possession of the suit land with defendants, petitioner/plaintiff averred that Mst. Nama, respondent/defendant No,1, was wife of brother of petitioner/plaintiff, and after death of said brother of petitioner/plaintiff, she affected second marriage with one, Azam of Juglote Gilgit, but later on, the said Azam also died issue less. Respondents/ defendants contested the suit through their joint written statement, wherein, averred that the suit is time barred "because Mr. Khan, real brother of petitioner/plaintiff, sold suit land to the father of respondents through sale deed dated 28-02-1957. Soon-after the sale, possession of the suit land was transferred to father of respondents, who got the suit land mutated in his name through mutation No,818 of 26-12-59.
Learned trial court completed trial proceedings and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the same was also dismissed through impugned order.
3. I have gone through the file on my own. I have thoroughly perused pleadings of parties and the material available on record. In the csse in hand it is not disputed that suit property was ownership of Mr. Khan, who was real brother of petitioner/plaintiff and was also husband of respondent/defendant No,
1. From plain perusal of bereavements of plaint, it is evident that deceased Khan had three brothers including petitioner/ also, plaintiff and one sister also, who have admittedly not been imp leaded to the case. So the case evidently suffers from mis-joinder of necessary parties. The second very important aspect of the case is that respondents have very clearly pleaded that father of respondent No,1 purchased suit land from Mr. Khan, the real brother of petitioner/plaintiff. So the burden of proof shifted to respondents who have successfully discharged the same. In this connection, learned trial court framed issues Nos.6 and 7 and has given findings holding the said issues proved. I have gone through the statement of attorney for petitioner/plaintiff, wherein, the said attorney has clearly stated that one Mr. Amirullah wrote the sale deed between Mr. Khan and Molvi Mohammad Khan. The said Amirullah appeared as P.W.3 and has stated in proof of the sale deed. So the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff is time barred also because the period for challenging the sale has expired long ago.
4. So the concurrent findings of the two courts below on the said two issues cannot be interfered as are based on sound reasoning and evidence. There is no material defect in the findings of the two courts below nor the impugned orders of the two courts below are result of any misreading or non- reading of the evidence of either of the parties. Therefore, I hold that this petition is meritless and baseless. Petition is dismissed. Petitioner to bear costs. This file be consigned to record.