Through this single judgment, I intend to decide the titled Civil Revision No. 2203/2015 as well as Writ Petition No. 232671/2019, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases.
2. Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the judgment & decree dated 24.10.2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhakkar whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioners/plaintif fs was dismissed and the judgment & decree dated 27.06.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar dismissing the appeal of the petitioner .
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintif fs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents/ defendants contending therein that they are owner in possession of Khata No. 180/171 Khatooni No. 345 Khasra No. 2117/494 measuring 02 Kanal 06 Marla, fully described in the headnote of the plaint. The petitioners/plaintif fs claim that they purchased the suit land against consideration from Dost Muhammad Khan through sale deed dated 31.03.1972 and the' respondents/defendants have no concern with the suit land. The respondents/defendants are illegally and unlawfully interfering into the peaceful possession of the petitioners/ plaintif fs. The respondent/defendant filed contesting written statement contending therein that he purchased 1/5th share of land measuring 06 Kanal 03 Marla in Khata No. 180/345 from Sher Bahadur Khan and in this regard a judgment & decree dated 03.07.1972 was passed in his favour on the basis of which, Mutation No. 1514 dated 28.07.1976 was incorporated in the revenue record. The learned trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence of the parties and finally dismissed the suit vide judgment & decree dated 24.10.2012. The petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment & decree dated 27.06.2015. Hence, this civil revision.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
5. The petitioners/plaintif fs filed suit for permanent injunction on the basis of an unregistered alleged sale deed dated 21.03.1972 but ordinarily unregistered documents are devoid of conferring any title on its holder unless he is proved to be an owner of said property through independent believable evidence. The respondent/defendant produced Mutation No. 1514 dated 28.07.1976 in favour of Ghulam Rasool sanctioned on the basis of a judgment & decree dated 03.07.1972 in respect of suit land, which means that the respondents/defendants are the owners in possession of the land measuring 06 Kanal 03 Marla.
6. The petitioner/plaintif f produced Nasrullah Khan, Patwari (P.W.I) who admitted it correct that Khasra No. 2117/494 is owned by the defendant and the plaintif fs are not mentioned as owners in Khasra No. 2117/494.
Mohsinullah, one of the petitioners/plaintif fs, (P.W.3) stated that his father and his uncle purchased suit land measuring 02 Kanal 06 Marla from Dost Muhammad Khan and in this regard a stamp paper (Exh.P .3) consisted of 20 pages were prepared and they got possession of the same. In cross-examination, he admitted that stamp paper (Exh.P .3) was not written before him; that he did not know the scribe of stamp paper (Exh.P .3); that he also did not know which khasra number is written in the plaint.
7. The petitioners/plaintif fs neither produced any witness in support of their claim nor brought on record any solid evidence to show that the responde nts/defendants are illegally interfering into the possession of the petitioners/plaintif fs. On the other hand, the respondents/defendants through oral as well as documentary evidence proved that they are the owners in possession of the land. Furthermore, the respo ndents/defendants categorically stated in their written statement that they are in possession of the land owned by them and are not intended to get possession of the land in possession of the petitioners/plaintif fs by any means. This assertion of the respondents/defendants is suf ficient for the dismissal of the suit of the petitioners/plaintif fs.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illega lity or material irregularity , mis- reading and non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgments & decrees passed by the learned Courts below and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect. The concurrent findings of fact are against the petitioners which do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdictio n in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR1469) .
9. In view of above, this civil revision being devoid of any merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
10. As regard the connected case i.e. Writ Petition No. 23267/2019 is concerned, the said petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintif fs (Mohsin Ullah Khan) against the order dated 20.04.2018, passed by the learned Civil Court in a suit filed, by respondents/defendants against the present petitioners whereby the proceedings of the said suit were adjourned sine-die due to pendency of instant civil revision. As the instant civil revision has been decided today , therefore, W rit Petition No. 23267/2019 is hereby disposed of being infructuous.