' This civil Revision No, 308/82 arises from the judgment and decree dated 19th April, 1982 of the learned Additional District Judge, V, So hiwal, confirming the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Okara, dated 25th January, 1981 dismissing the suit for declaration filed by Ilyas and others petitioners herein against Niaz Ahmad and others respondents.
2. The facts leading up to this petition in brief as averred in the plaint are that the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners herein purchased land measuring 40 Kanals through registered sale- deed dated 13th June, 1956 from the respondents Nos. 1 to 9, paid the price and took the possession. At that time Niaz Ahmad respondent No, I whose share was 4 Kanals only was a minor.
Hassan, predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners produced sale-deed for registration but the Revenue Officers declined to mutate I/10th share of Niaz on the ground of his minority. It was averred that Niaz Ahmad respondent No 1 had agreed to transfer his share but he did not do so when he attained majority. It so happened that in consolidation proceedings Niaz Ahmad respondent transferred 4 Kanals to Jahangir, 'predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 9 to 16. It was further alleged that since the petitioners are owners in possession for 21 years the alienation in favour of Jahangir was illegal and ineffective against their rights. Niaz Ahmed respondent No, I and Jahangir, predecessorin-interest of respondents Nos. 9 to 16 contested the suit raising preliminary objections and denying the averments. On the pleadings following issues were framed :-
(1) Whether defendant No, 1 has been wrongly impleaded ? If so, with what effect? 0. P. D.
(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form ?
(3) Whether the suit is time-barred ? 0. P. D.
(4) Whether the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction is incorrect ? If so what is correct valuation ?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land for consideration and against registered deed No, 3240 is illegal, void and inoperative against their rights ? 0. P. P.
(6) Relief.
' Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were decided against defendants therein, issues Nos. 3 and 5 were decided in their favour.
' As a result of the findings on issues Nos. 3 and 5, the suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge on 12th January, 1981. Feeling aggrieved, Byes and others filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, on 19th April, 1981-Hence this revision petition.
3. Before me. The.Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the petitioners having acquired proprietary rights on account of the adverse possession, were entitled to the declaration to the effect that they were the owners in possession. The learned counsel contends that it has been admitted by the witnesses produced by the defendants that the petitioners were in continuous possession of the 4 Kanals owned by Niaz Ahmad respondent No, 1 for the last 21 1/2 years and as such the petitioners had acquired the ownership through adverse possession. He further contended that the question of adverse possession has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below, inasmuch as it was proved by the oral and documentary evidence brought on the record that the possession of the petitioners was adverse as against Niaz Ahmad and Jahangir, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 9 to 16.
4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record I find that the declaration as to the ownership of the petitioners was not sought on the ground of adverse possession. The petitioners/plaintiffs' case was that they were put in possession by the owners on account of sale- deed executed by the owners in their favour. I further find that Niaz Ahmad respondent No, 1 was admittedly minor at the time of the execution of the sale-deed and that Niaz Ahmad and others are otherwise co-sharers. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there was a heavy onus the petitioners to prove adverse possession for more than 12 years by strong and exceptional evidence which is not available in the instant case. I am afraid that the possession of the petitioners in the circumstances of this ease cannot be termed as adverse possession at any time before the institution of the suit. The learned Courts below have properly dealt with the question of adverse possession and have given sound reasons in support of their decisions. They have properly considered the legal and factual aspects of the case and have rightly dismissed the suit and appeal. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any material misreading of the evidence by the trial Court. No other point has been agitated before me.
' For what has been stated above there is no merit, in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.