MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---Order dated 02-06-2015 passed by one learned District Judge Hunza- Nagar that he passed in CFA No,76/13, has been challenged through this petition. Through impugned order, learned first appellate court dismissed the appeal upholding the findings/ judgment dated 05-10-2013 passed by the Civil Judge Nagar in Civil Suit No,142/1995.
2. Petitioner/plaintiff and defendant Sultan Mehmood, since dead, are inter-se real brothers. Suit has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against LRs of defendant Sultan Mehmood, therefore, hereunder respondents/defendants mean legal heirs of deceased Sultan Mehmood. Petitioner/ plaintiff filed a Civil Suit (C.S. No,142/1995) in the trial court praying for declaration to the effect that he is the owner of suit land described in the plaint. Petitioner has further prayed for possession of the suit land. Learned trial court framed issues and completed all trial proceedings that entailed to judgment/order dated 05-10-2013. On appeal, the learned first appellate court maintained the judgment/order of the trial court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the file. Petitioner/plaintiff has prayed for declaring him owner of the suit land on the ground that he purchased the suit land from Ghulam Haider and Ghulam Murtaza, real brothers inter-se and sons of Rehmat Baig, through Exh- P/2. Exh-P/2 is the sale deed affected on 12-01-1980. In reply to the averments of plaint, respondents/ defendants pleaded that petitioner/plaintiff purchased the suit land but paid amounts of Rs,11500/-, as part price of the suit land by selling a common field of the parties. As to payment of Rs,22500/-, still part payment of the price of suit land, respondents/defendants averred that the same was paid by them and the last part payment of Rs,18,000/-, price of the suit land, was paid by plaintiff. In the case in hand, respondents have further averred that the real owner of suit land was Rehmat Baig, who was living at the time of sale agreement, therefore, the plea of petitioner/ plaintiff that he purchased the suit land from Ghulam Haider and Ghulam Murtaza sons of Rehmat Baig is false.
4.In my opinion, petitioner/plaintiff is legally bound to prove:-- a)That Ghulam Haider, the alleged vendor of the suit land, was exclusive owner of the suit land when the sale was being affected between petitioner/plaintiff and the said Ghulam Haider? b)That petitioner/plaintiff purchased suit land solely without any participation of respondents in the payment of sale price of the suit land?
In this connection, issues Nos,3 and 4 are important and relevant. Counsel for parties advanced arguments in the light of material available on file, in proof and rebuttal of the said two issues. I have gone through the evidence of parties available on record. In his statement, petitioner/plaintiff has stated that "he was deprived of the possession of suit land about 17 years ago". In cross- examination part of his statement, petitioner/plaintiff has stated that Ghulam Haider, vendor, died before preparation of Exh-P/2. In his statement, Ghulam Murtaza (PW-1) has stated that defendants paid Rs,24,000/- to Rehmat Baig, father of the said PW. Statement of PW-2 is irrelevant.
5. In the above circumstances, it is evident that the concurrent findings of the two courts below are not result of any misreading of evidence of either of the parties nor the same is result of non- reading any part of evidence of parties. I, therefore, dismiss this petition. This file be consigned to record.