1. CHAUDHARY KHALID RASHEED, J The captioned appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree recorded by the learned District Judge Mirpur dated 28.01.2019, whereby, judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge Court No. 1. Mirpur dated 28.02.2017 has been maintained.
2. Brief facts forming background of the instant appeal are, Raja Shoukat Ali and others respondents herein filed a suit for perpetual injunction against Nazakat and others in the Court of Civil Judge Court No.1. Mirpur, wherein it was stated that the suit land measuring 4 kanals and 19 marlas situated in village Ghailay Tehsil and District Mirpur was purchased by father of plaintiffs from Noor Din and Naik Alam sons of Hassan Din vide sale deed dated 14.07.1965. The suit land is in possession of the plaintiffs and they have constructed houses thereupon but defendants are flexing their muscles to interfere into their peaceful possession in garb of wrong entries in the revenue record.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement wherein the claim of the plaintiffs was refuted.
4. Manzoor Begum widow of Naik Alam now survived by appellant herein also filed a suit for possession of the suit land against Shoukat Ali and others in the same Court wherein it was pleaded that vide sale deed dated 17.04.1965, 4 kanals and 9 marlas of land was sold by the predecessor of plaintiff and land measuring 15 marlas from survey No.18 min is available with them for sale. It was contended that sale deed dated 17.04.1965 has been tampered by defendants as instead of 4 kanals and 9 marlas of land, 4 kanals and 19 marlas has been entered, hence the possession of defendants on land comprising survey No.18 min measuring 15 marlas is fanciful. This suit was also resisted by filing written statement.
5. The learned trial Court consolidated both the suits, framed issues in light of pleadings of the parties provided them opportunity to lead evidence and at the conclusion of the trial dismissed the suit filed by Manzoor Begum for want of proof whereas decreed the counter suit filed by Raja Shoukat Ali and others. Feeling aggrieved, Manzoor Begum and others preferred an appeal before District Judge Mirpur which also met the same fate as was dishonoured vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 28.01.2019, hence, the captioned second appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has filed written arguments which are made part of the file, hence, the same are not reiterated here for the sake of brevity.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment on all counts and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that no misreading or non-reading of evidence has been committed by the Courts below while passing the impugned orders.
8. I have considered the written arguments presented on behalf of the appellant, heard learned counsel for the respondents, gone through the record of the case with utmost care and caution.
9. As far as the suit filed by Raja Shoukat Ali and others for perpetual injunction is concerned, the plaintiffs placed on record an original sale deed dated 17.04.1965 tendered in evidence as Exh.PA which reveals that total 4 kanals and 19 marlas of land has been purchased by Jalal Khan from Noor Din and Naik Alam for the consideration of Rs.63,000/- and mutation No.210 was attested in pursuance of said sale deed but inadvertently the acreage of purchased land in the mutation was entered as 4 kanals and 9 marlas however in the recent settlement, the entries in the revenue record have been corrected and total purchased land entered as 4 kanals and 19 marlas. The defendants have not denied the sale deed dated 17.04.1965 but their stance is that the sale deed has been tampered by the defendants however, no tampering has been found rather controversy created between the parties is only due to the wrong entry in mutation No.210 which has been rectified subsequently during the recent settlement but defendants in garb of said wrong entry in mutation No.210 tried to take possession of land which has already been sold by their predecessors to the father of plaintiffs. As the plaintiffs have proved their stance that vide sale deed dated 17.04.1965 their father purchased 4 kanals and 19 marlas of land, they are in possession of the purchased land and defendants have no possession of the purchased land and defendants have no concern with the same land, thus the Courts below accurately decreed the suit filed by plaintiffs/respondents herein for perpetual injunction.
10. So far as the suit filed by Manzoor Begum now survived by appellant herein for possession is concerned, as stated earlier, defendants/respondents Shoukat Ali and others are in possession of land as owners because the same land was purchased by Jalal Khan from Noor Din and Naik Alam predecessors of plaintiffs, hence the plaintiff had got no plausible concern with the same land and was not entitled to take possession from the defendants who were lawful owners and in possession of the land. The stance taken by plaintiff that tota, 4 kanals and 9 marlas of land was purchased by Jalal Din vide sale deed dated 17.04.1965 is negated from the sale deed Exh.PA which was also tendered by the plaintiff in his evidence as Exh.DD and it is clearly mentioned in the sale deed that 4 kanals and 19 marlas of land is sold. No tampering has been apparently found in the said sale deed, thus the Courts below were justified to drop the suit filed by Manzoor Begum for possession of the land.
11. The moot question involved in the case is as to whether vide sale deed dated 17.04.1965, 4 kanals and 19 marlas of land was purchased by Jalal Khan from predecessor of appellant herein or 4 kanals and 9 marlas of land was sold through the said sale deed is a pure question of facts which has been decided by both the Courts below concurrently. It is a well settled precept of law that concurrent findings of facts cannot be disturbed in second appeal until and unless any misreading, non-reading of evidence or violation of any law is pointed out.Reliance in this regard may be placed on 2022 SCR 416, wherein the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir at page 428 observed as under:- "The principle is that ordinarily the second appellate Court, such as this Court, would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court.
12. Second appellate Court under section 100, C.P.C., would overturn such findings and conclusions only in exceptional cases. The circumstances under which such intervention may legally be permissible or justifiable if it was established with absolute clearness that some oversight or error resulting in a miscarriage of justice was apparent in the way in which the Courts below had dealt with the facts, it must be established that Courts below clearly erred in the presence of a crucial documentary evidence or the principle pf evidence had not properly been applied or the findings was so based on erroneous proposition of law that if that proposition be corrected, the finding will become meaningless and finally, it must be demonstrated that the judgments of both the Courts below were clearly wrong."
13. As no misreading, non-reading of evidence or violation of any settled maxim of law has been illuminated by the appellant hence, in view of bedrock precept of law second appeal is incompetent.
14. The sum and substance of the above discussion is, finding no essence the instant appeal, is hereby sacked.