' This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 20th February, 1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar, whereby he reversed the trial Court's judgment and dismissed the petitioners' suit.
' The facts in brief are; that the petitioners brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with their possession and ownership of house in dispute. The latter contested the suit and claimed that the property in question originally belonged to one Ghulam Rasul who aggrieved to sell it away to him for a considera tion of Rs,10,000 that out of this amount he received Rs,9,000 inducted the respondent into the house and took upon himself to execute the sale-deed or get a decree passed in this behalf, in his favour, on payment of remaining sum of Rs,1,000. The respondent further pleaded that after taking over the possession he partitioned the house into two portions and entered into a bargain with one Ghulam Qasim to alienate one portion in his name. He categorically asserted that the petitioners were not in possession of the property.
2. The petitioners relied upon oral evidence comprising the testimony of Muhammad Ramzan and Abdur Rashid who deposed that the house belonged to the petitioners and that they were in possession thereof. Muhammad Iqbal petitioner also appeared as his own witness. On the other WA, the respondent examined Ghulam Rasul to depose, that he got the house from his maternal grand-mother, namely, Mst. Zainab Bibi. In proof of his claim he produced a copy of the decree- sheet Exh.D-1, which showed that a declaratory suit filed by the said witness against Mst. Zainab Bibi' that he was owner of the house described therein, was decreed qn 1-2-1973. Besides his own statement, the respondent also produced one Muhammad Afzal as D.W.2 establish his possession.
3. On evaluation of the evidence, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners obtained the house from Mst. Zainab Bibi who was their paternal grand-mother; that the boundaries of the house given in the decree-sheet did not tally with that of the house in dispute.
The fact that the respondent failed to produce any sale-deed executed in his favour by Ghulam Rasul also prevailed with the learned, Civil Judge. He held the petitioner in possession and decreed the suit in their favour.
4. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge took the view that as per decree-sheet Exh.D-1, the house stood gifted to Ghulam Rasul who sold it away to the respondent. He maintained that the petitioners did not produce any documentary evidence to prove their ownership. In his opinion, they were not the owners in possession and thus had no locus standi to file the suit. He, therefore, accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit.
5. I have heard, the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. The case has been dealt with by the learned first appellate Court in a perfunctory manner. Even if the property in dispute was transferred to Ghulam Rasul by Mst. Zainab Bibi, it being situate in Bhakkar City and of the value of more than Rs,100 it could not have been sold away to the respondent without a registered sale-deed. Admittedly, as per recitals in the written statement there was no sale-deed in his favour. The learned first appellate Court has not at all adverted to this aspect of the case.
Furthermore, on the question of possession its finding is superficial and arrived at without attending to the evidence on this point. Faced with these circumstances, the learned counsel for the respondent found it difficult to support the impugned judgment.
6. For the foregoing reasons this revision petition is accepted, judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Court set aside. The case is remanded to the learned first appellate Court to decide the respondent's appeal afresh in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.