ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J. The petitioners/defendants challenged judgments and decrees dated 25th February, 2016 and 25th November, 2019 (impugned judgments and decrees) passed by learned Civil Judge-VI, Quetta and learned Additional District Judge-IV/Model Civil Appellate Court, Quetta (trial court and appellate court), whereby the suit filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs was decreed and the appeal filed by the petitioners/ defendants was dismissed.
2. Concise facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed amended suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction against the defendants in the court of Civil Judge-VI, Quetta, which was contested by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, defendants Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 on legal as well as factual grounds by filing separate written statements. Whereas defendants Nos. 5 and 8 were proceeded against ex-parte. The trial court framed issues, on which the parties produced, pro and contra evidence. On culmination of trial arguments were heard and thereafter, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment and decreed dated 25th February, 2016 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The petitioners being aggrieved filed R.F.A. No. 19 of 2016 before this court. Thereafter, due to amendment in the Balochistan Civil Court (Amendment) Act 2019, whereby in clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 18 of the Balochistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 (W.P Ordinance No. II of 1962), for words "five hundred thousand" the words "one hundred million", have been substituted, - R.F.A. No. 19 of 2016 was transmitted to the files of District Judge, Quetta, who further transferred the same to learned Additional District Judge-IV/Model Civil Appellate Court, Quetta, who vide judgment and decree dated 25th November, 2019 dismissed the appeal, hence the petitioners are before this court.
3. Heard and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. The record transpires that the respondents/ plaintiffs filed suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants before Civil Judge-VI, Quetta, alleging therein that the suit property bearing khasra No. 402 was their ancestral property, due to partition of joint inherited property the suit land and other properties were given to the respondents/plaintiffs as shareholder. The grandfather of the respondents/plaintiffs had rented the suit land to the grandfather of petitioners/defendants which still continuing. Before filing this suit the respondents/plaintiffs filed eviction application which was dismissed against which appeal was filed before this court which was withdrawn on the ground that the respondent in the eviction application has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, therefore, the respondents/plaintiffs filed instant suit. The petitioners/defendants repudiated the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs. The remaining defendants filed written statement and admitted the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs.
The trial court framed issues. The parties produced their respective evidence. Whereafter, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 25th February, 2016 decreed the suit. Being aggrieved the petitioners/defendants filed R.F.A. No. 19 of 2016 before this court and this court vide order dated 30th May, 2019 directed the Tehsildar to inspect the site and submit his report. The relevant para is reproduced hereunder: "To resolve the issue with regard to the possession of the abovementioned property, the Tehsildar concerned along with the concerned Patwari and Qanungo should inspect the site in the light of the original record, in presence of the parties on 20th June, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. The Tehsildar should ascertain as to who is occupying the property in question and the report should be submitted on the next date of hearing."
4. In compliance of the above referred order Tehsildar submitted report. Due to enhancement of valuation the RFA was transmitted to the files of District Judge, Quetta, which was entrusted to learned Additional District Judge-IV/Model Civil Court, Quetta. The learned appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 25th November, 2019 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants produced copy of order of Civil Appeal No. 3-Q of 2009, which, was disposed of on 19th September, 2012. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants placed copy of transfer/mutation No. 212 which transpires that khasra No. 402/1 was transferred from the names of Ghulam Jilani, Ghulam Haider son of Khudaidad to the name of Momin Khan (petitioner) on the direction of Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan. Though the referred transfer/mutation neither produced nor placed the copy on record according to law.
For the sake of justice the referred document is perused but the above transfer/mutation has no relevancy with the suit property.
6. Admittedly the respondents/plaintiffs are recorded owner of the property bearing khasra No. 402, measuring 221 square feet, khewat No. 81, khatooni No. 184 Mohal Mouza Ward No. 1 Tappa Urban Tehsil and District Quetta. The respondents/plaintiffs produced oral as well as documentary evidence to substantiate their claim, while the petitioners/ defendants in written statement merely denied the ownership of the respondents/plaintiffs, but failed to produce extract from the revenue record in order to prove their ownership. The petitioners/ defendants claimed ownership on the ground that utility bills are in their name. The petitioners/defendants were duty bound to produce revenue record or other document to prove their claim. The respondents/plaintiffs claimed ownership through longstanding entries. Under section 52 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 (Act 1967) the entries carries presumption of truth. Reliance is placed on the reported judgment of this court titled Bakhtiar v. Nasrullah 2015 CLC 385, wherein it was held: "13. The learned counsel for the appellants laid much stress that mere the mutation entries in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 to 53 does not create any right and on that strength, the mutation entries produced by the respondents confer no right. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is not tenable. It is a well-settled that presumption of truth is attached to mutation.
The appellants did not lead any evidence to rebut the said entries in any manner. In the case of Hakim Khan v. Nazar Ahmed Lughmani, 1992 SCMR 1832, the claim made on the basis of revenue entries was upheld and concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below were set aside because no evidence was led to prove that those entries were collusive or fraudulent. In the case of Mazloom Hussain v. Abid Hussain, PLD 2008 SC 571, the afore referred view was reiterated and it was observed as under:- "The High Court has observed that the entries in the Revenue Record in favour of the appellants were not made in accordance with, the prescribed procedure provided in law. The answer to the foregoing objection is that the said entries emerged in the record of rights for the year 1965-66 have not been challenged by the plaintiff-respondents Nos.1 and 2 before the Revenue functionaries or through a civil suit. As provided in section 52 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act; 1967, the presumption of truth is attached to the revenue entries which has also been upheld by this Court in the case of Hakim Khan v. Aurangzeb and another 1979 SCMR 625."
In the case of Nawab Khan v. Said Karim Khan, 1997 SCMR 1840, the entries made in the revenue record were not interfered with as presumption of truth was attached to those entries and no strong evidence was led in rebuttal to warrant interference with those entries. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment at page 1844 held as under:- "The contents of the record of rights which also includes the settlement record used to be followed with more or less exactness by the Settlement Officers, which included Wajib-ul-Arz, Jamabandi and the portion of the Shajra-e-nasb or genealogical of the proprietors.
The presumption of truth is attached to the record of rights generally but to the first ever settlement record in particular. Very strong evidence is required to rebut the presumption of correctness attached to the first settlement record of an area."
7. It appears from the record that the petitioners/defendants failed to produce any document.
Although they claimed ownership of property which has already mutated in the names of the respondents/plaintiff in the revenue record. The petitioners/defendants did not challenge the mutation entries neither in the revenue hierarchy nor civil court. It is settled principle that mere bald assertion cannot rebut the document. Reliance is placed on the case of Abdul Ghani v. Mst.
Yasmeen Khan 2011 SCMR 837, wherein it was held: "
"-------It is well-settled by now that mere oral assertion is not sufficient to rebut documentary evidence. ------"
8. So far as the utility bills are concerned. The utility bills cannot be considered the proof of title. In Liaquat Ali's case 2013 MLD 1818 it was held: "----Merely on the basis of utility bills and receipts regarding payment of taxes one cannot be termed as owner of the said property. Reliance is placed on case reported as Muhammad Zaman v. Muhammad Jamil and 4 others (1992 CLC 873) wherein it has been laid down as under:-- "It appears that both the lower Courts had taken documents relating to the Excise and Taxation Survey, electric connection and the sale agreement to be the proof of ownership of the structure.
The documents relating to the Excise and Taxation Department are at best the documents that can entitle the department to recover their taxes from occupants but can never be taken to be the evidence of ownership of a premises."
In case reported as Muhammad Ismail v. Maqbool Ahmad and 8 others (2001 CLC 252) it has been observed that "The installation of electricity connection does not confer any right on the petitioner. Electricity is not provided to the owners only but any occupant can get the connection after fulfilling the formalities required by WAPDA".
8. So far as the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the respondents could not prove any ownership right/title qua the disputed properties is concerned, suffice it to say, that while deciding application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. only the determining factor is whether the impugned decree or order has been passed on the back of applicant or it infringed its right to contest the claim of plaintiff and before acceptance of application under section 2(2) of C.P.C. the applicant is not bound to establish his right qua the disputed property in absolute terms. Reliance is placed on case reported as Mst. Shahana Ali v. Syed Muhammad Haris Jaffari (PLD 2010 Karachi 366).
Reliance is also placed on reported case of Muhammad Zaman v. Muhammad Ismail 1992 CLC 873, wherein it was held: "It appears that both the lower Courts had taken documents relating to the Excise and Taxation Survey, electric connection and the sale agreement to be the proof of ownership of the structure.
The documents relating to the Excise and Taxation Department are at best the documents that can entitle the department to recover their taxes from occupants but can never be taken to be the evidence of ownership of a premises."
In case Muhammad Ismail v. Maqbool Ahmed 2001 CLC 252, it has been observed: "----- The installation of electricity connection does not confer any right on the petitioner.
Electricity is not provided to the owners only but any occupant can get the connection after fulfilling the formalities required by WAPDA. Oral evidence of the petitioner cannot be given preference over documentary evidence produced by himself, copy of register of rights for the year 1986-87 which clearly shows that the respondents are the owners of the suit property. Except aforesaid Jamabandi no other document pertaining to the rights of the parties on the suit property was produced to establish ownership of the petitioner."
9. The courts below have recorded concurrent finding of facts against the petitioners/defendants which are not open to interference by this court unless and until grave injustice or material irregularity is proved on the record which is missing in the instant case. Therefore, no interference can be made in the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the courts below. The petitioners/defendants have failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below. Reliance is placed on Mst. Safia v Mst. Bibi 2005 MLD 646, wherein it was held: "It is well-settled principle of law that in case the trial Court has exercised its discretion which is upheld by the First Appellate Court then this Court seldom interferes unless and until the discretion is exercised arbitrarily. It is also settled principle of the law that the petitioner/plaintiff has to prove her case on the basis of her own evidence and she cannot get benefit of weaknesses of evidence of the respondents/defendants. It is also settled principle of law that this Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in concurrent findings of Courts below while exercising jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. unless and until the judgments of the Courts below are result of misreading or non-reading of record or decided the case in violation of parameters prescribed by the superior Courts. Learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any irregularity or illegality committed by the Courts below or misreading or non-reading any piece of evidence. As mentioned above, petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove Issue No.6. Therefore, petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled to get 1/8th share in the land in dispute. Findings of the Courts below on Issue No.6 are upheld. The remaining issues are dependent upon Issue No.6. Therefore, the remaining issues have become redundant."
In view of above discussion the instant revision petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.