MAHMOOD A. KHAN, J.---This revision application has been filed against the concurrent findings, whereby the judgment and decree passed by learned VIIth Additional District Judge Hyderabad, dismissing the Civil Appeal bearing No.32 of 2008 has been impugned wherein the judgment and decree passed by learned IInd Senior Civil Judge Hyderabad in F.C Suit No.63 of 1999 filed by respondent No.1 herein for declaration possession and permanent injunction in respect of a plot bearing No.342 situated at Shah Latifabad Hyderabad as decreed was upheld. Learned trial Court framed the issues on the basis of pleadings and also addressed the objections of limitation as raised by the present applicant at the stage of final arguments, found the claim of the plaintif f valid and the documents relied upon by the applicant as not proved and forged/fabricated. The appellate Court also re- apprised the evidence framed the points of determination and upheld the judgment of the trial Court.
2. According to the record of the proceedings the respondent No.1 claimed that she had been allotted the subject plot to which her sister , the mother of applicants was a neighbour allottee and that the possession of the subject plot was with her through her husband along with a valid title till 1998, when she came to know about forged documents favouring the defendants/applicants herein thereupon the suit was filed. The applicants on the other hand claimed an agreement of sale through Iqrarnama from the said respondent and title from the respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has made his submissions orally as well as through written synopsis. It is contended by him that the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court has failed to consider that the question of limitation was present in the matter and as such the claim of plaintif f/respondent No.1 was barred under the Limitation Act. It is further contended that the verification of plaint was not made by the respondent No.1 and as the appellant No.1 was having a lease deed as well as registered document in his own name. That in the earlier round of proceedings the plaint as filed by the respondent No.1 was dismissed where-after the said respondent had approached the learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court was pleased to remand the matter , however , an application made by the present applicants for setting aside the remand order was not entertained as such this revision application is liable to be considered for the said application along with the final order as impugned. In support of his contentions he has relied upon the reported cases (i) 1908 SCMR 1067, (ii) CLC 102 (sic), (iii) 2012 MLD 39, (v) 2012 MLD 50, (v) PLD 1979 SC 821; (vi) PLD 1985 SC 405, (vii) 1990 SCMR 1699 ,
(viii) 2010 SCMR 1630 , (ix) PLD 2009 95(sic), (x) 2005 CLC 2'85, (xi) 2017 MLD 1 105 and (xii) 201 1 SC 657.
4. Learned counsel for the private respondent, however , contends that the respondent No.1 is real sister of Mst.
Gracy the mother of two applicants against whom the suit was filed and the said parties acquired adjacent plots bearing No.341 favouring Mrs. Daisy and 342 (the subject plot) favouring Mrs. Gracy . The allotment was acquired by respondent No.1 on 11.10.1957 and full payment in this regard was made on 03.01.1962 and as such lease was also acquired by her on 28.06.1962. It is further contended that an lqrarnama dated 02.06.1964, which was claimed by respondent No.1, was manipulated and created in order for the applicants to maintain their possession. That despite the allotment and lease favouring Mrs. Daisy in existence another allotment was acquired on part of the applicant No.2 on 15.03.1975 where-after the lease deed was also acquired by the said applicant on 20.12.1987 for the same plot. It is contended that the registered document favouring the said respondent No.1, was not only prior in existence, the same was never even put to any alleged cancellation which was for the same property . This came in the knowledge of the respondent No.1 as discussed in the plaint and evidence in support of the same also present which has been considered in the concurrent judgments. In support of his arguments he has relied upon (i)
2009 MLD 1314 , (ii) 2009 SCMR 623. (iii) PLD 2001 Kar. 403, (iv) 2001 SCMR 798, (v) 2001 SCMR 431 (vi)
2001 CLC 660, (vii) 1999 CLC 395, (viii) 1997 SCMR 1139, (ix) 2004 SCMR 877, (x) 2007 SCMR 996, (xi) PLD 2002 SC 677 , (xiii) 1991 CLC 1801 . (xiv) 2006 1426 (sic) and (xv) PLD 1984 Quetta 92 .
5. Learned A.A.G. supports the impugned judgments and decrees contending that concurrent findings are present wherein the judgments have discussed the evidence and decided the same on the basis of the strength of the claim of the respondent No.1 .
6. Having heard the learned counsel present and gone through the record. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that original documents were available with him, however , it has been observed that this contention is not supported by record, as such perhaps learned counsel has refused to the documents acquired subsequent to the documents favouring the respondent No.l. As to the question of limitation, it is observed that no specific issue in this regard was got framed despite which the same stands discussed at the stage of final arguments before the trial Court reasonably , even otherwise matter of limitation is almost always a mixed question of fact and law irrespectively from the record no bar of limitation is found to be present. As to the other contentions, the same are also not found supported by record. It is also a matter of record that the respondent No.1 was an earlier valid title holder and in existence of the same no further right was available to be given as claimed by the applicants. The alleged lqrarnama has already been held to be not proved to which nothing has been shown to disturb the same as determined by the concurrent finding present. Nothing has been shown to exercise the revisional powers, accordingly this revision application is found without merits and is dismissed with costs.