ALI BAIG, J.---The instant civil revision petition has been preferred under section 115, C.P.C. against the impugned judgment/decree dated 15.12.2017, passed by the learned District Judge, Ghanche whereby the Learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the civil first appeal of the present petitioner/ plaintiff and has maintained the judgment/decree dated 01.03.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Khaplu.
2. Succinctly the facts giving rise to the filing of the present civil revision petition are that, the petitioner/plaintiff had filed suit for declaration/perpetual injunction and possession of Suit land measuring 03 marlas under khewat No.382 khasra No.1063 situated at Farol Kharkoo against the present respondents/ defendants in the trial court claiming that, the suit property was allocated to him for construction of house, but the respondent/ defendant No.1 in collusion with the respondent/defendant No.2 has forcibly occupied the suit land and has constructed some shops there upon. The petitioner/ plaintiff further averred in the plaint that the respondent/defendant No.2 was not competent to transfer the suit land to the respondent/defendant No.1 without permission and consent of petitioner/ plaintiff.
3.The respondent No.1 being contesting defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement in the learned trial court, wherein he has raised legal objections inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable in the present form, suit is rejectable under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., suit is barred by time etc. and has also repudiated the averments of plaint by pleading that the disputed land was common property of petitioner/ plaintiff and respondent/defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 has exchanged the suit land with the land of the respondent/ defendant No.1, whereas, the respondents/ defendants Nos. 2 to 6 have filed conceded/admissional written statement in the trial court.
4. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court has framed as many as 15 issues including additional issue.
5. After framing of issues, the learned trial court directed the parties to adduce their evidence as they wished to adduce in support of their respective claims. Accordingly, the petitioner/ plaintiff has produced 03 oral witnesses namely Syed Muhammad Ali, Muhammad Hussain and Suleman besides recording of his own statement through his attorney in the trial court. Likewise, the respondent/ defendant No.1 has produced 03 oral witnesses namely Syed Sadat Jan, Ali Muhammad and Musa Ali in addition to recording of his own statement before the learned trial court.
6. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court after hearing the arguments on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties has dismissed the suit of the present petitioner/plaintiff vide the judgment / decree dated 01.03.2014.
7. The present petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved from the judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court had filed civil 1st appeal in the court of the learned District Judge, Ghanche which was also dismissed by the learned 1st Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment/decree dated 05.12.2017, hence this civil revision petition.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned District Judge Ghanche is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case, as such the impugned judgment/ decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff further contended that the learned trial court has passed the judgment/decree dated 01/03/2014 without hearing arguments on behalf of the parties.
The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff further contended that allegedly the respondent/ defendant No.2 had exchanged the suit land with the land of respondent/ defendant No.1, but the respondent/ defendant No.1 has failed to produce any valid sale deed duly registered as required under Sections 54 and 118 of Transfer of Property Act 1882. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff further argued that the alleged exchange transaction between the respondent/defendant No.1 and respondent/ defendant No. 2 is void in absence of registered document regarding transfer of immovable property.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent/defendant No.1 controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff and supported the impugned judgments/decrees passed by both the courts below by contending that, since the petitioner/plaintiff has failed to prove his case/claim by adducing reliable and cogent evidence and the respondent/ defendant No.1 has successfully rebutted the claim of petitioner/plaintiff by producing unimpeachable and convincing evidence in the trial court, therefore, the learned trial court as well as learned First Appellate Court have rightly dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff. The learned counsel for the respondent/ defendant No.1 further argued that the attorney of the petitioner /plaintiff in his cross-examination has admitted that the respondent/defendant No.2 has exchanged his 04 marla land under khasra No.1063 with 03 marla land along with a big apricot tree under khasra No.1062 owned by respondent/ defendant No.1.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.
11. It is the case/claim of the petitioner/plaintiff, that the petitioner/ plaintiff was residing at Karachi for 20 years and his entire landed property along with disputed property was in possession of respondent/ defendant No.2 who is his real brother. The petitioner/ plaintiff has further alleged that the respondent/defendant No.1 in collusion with respondent/defendant No.2 has forcibly constructed some shops on disputed land as the respondent/defendant No.2 was not competent to exchange the Suit land with the land of the respondent/defendant No. 1. The respondent/ defendant No.1 has taken defence that the suit land was common property of the respondents/defendants Nos.1 and 2 and respondent/defendant No.2 being elder brother and head of his family was competent to exchange the disputed land with land of respondent/defendant No.1. The respondent/defendant No.2 vide his conceded/admissional written statement has admitted the claim of the present petitioner/plaintiff.
12. The respondent/defendant No.2 has appeared as Dw-1 before the learned trial court and got recorded his statement in favour of the plaintiff and in his examination in chief he has stated that landed property of petitioner/plaintiff was in his possession as Amanat, but in his cross-examination he has admitted that the entire landed property of their father has not been partitioned among his brothers and sister rather the entire landed property of his father is in his exclusive possession. He has further admitted that the exchange transaction of land under khasra No.1062 and khasra No.1063 between the respondent/defendant No.1 and respondent/defendant No.2 was orally taken place and has further admitted that respondent/defendant No.1 has constructed two shops on the exchanged disputed land by the respondent/defendant No. 1. The attorney for the petitioner/ plaintiff has also admitted in his cross-examination that the respondent/defendant No.2 has exchanged his land under khasra No.1063 measuring 04 marla with the and of the respondent/defendant No.1 measuring 3 marlas under khasra No.1062 along with a big apricot tree, hence attorney for the petitioner/plaintiff and respondent / defendant No.2 have categorically admitted that the disputed land has been exchanged with the land of respondent/defendant No. 1. Thus, the fact admitted by petitioner/ plaintiff need not to be proved.
Moreover, the respondent/ defendant No.2 through oral evidence has proved that the suit land has been exchanged by the respondent/ defendant No.2 with the land of respondent/ defendant No.1 thus, the respondent/ defendant No. 1 is legal and bona fide purchaser of the disputed land.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court as the petitioner/ plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his claim by producing convincing and the cogent oral and documentary evidence.
14. It is settled principle of law that in order to succeed, the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs, it is for him to prove his case and he cannot be benefited by the weaknesses of his opponent party/defendant.
15. Pursuant to above discussion, I am satisfied and considered view that the concurrent findings of courts below are neither based on miss-reading and non-reading of evidence nor the same suffer from any jurisdictional defect warranting interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this revision petition being bereft of merit/substance is dismissed accordingly. File.