' The respondents, filed a suit for declaration that they were the owners with possession of land in dispute and as a consequential relief a decree for permanent injunction was prayed for that the defendants be restrained from interfering in their possession and from raising any construction on the land. Originally suit was with regard to land measuring 9 Kanals 7 Marlas but subsequently the plaintiffs amended the plaint with the permission of the Court to restrict the claim to the land measuring 6 Kanals 7 Marlas. The present petitioners who were defendants in the suit contested the suit and on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the follwong issues:-
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form?
(2) Whether the suit has not been correctly valued for the purposes' of court-fee and jurisdiction?
(3) Whether the suit is barred by time?
(3-A) Whether the defendants have become owners of the suit land by adverse possession for more than 12 years?
(4) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land?
(5) Relief.
' The parties led documentary as well as oral evidence. The learned trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 3-5-1984 decreed the suit. He decided issues 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs and answered issue No.4 in affirmative. Issues No.3 and 3-A were answered in the negative. The appeal filed by petitioners met the same fate.
' The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that originally the suit was with regard to land measuring 9 Kanals and 7 Marlas. The plaint was subsequently amended and the claim was reduced to land measuring 6 Kanals 7 Marlas, therefore, the respondents entire suit must be held to be based on false claim. He has further argued that the suit was for mere declaration and permanent injunction, but the learned trial Court also passed a decree for mandatory injunction.
He also contended that it has been fully proved on record that the petitioners were in adverse possession of the land and they had become its owners by ,way of adverse possession. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also taken me through the evidence present on the file of the trial Court. He has also complained that the evidence produced by the petitioner, has been ignored.
2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the oral as well as documentary evidence. In order to show that there was neither any misreading of the evidence by the Courts below nor the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners have any force. I have gone through the record of the trial Court and the evidence produced by the parties. It has been admitted by DW 2 Muhammad Din that the land in dispute is in killa No.12, square No.43 and its area was 9 Kanals 7 Marlas, out of which 3 Kanals which was in actual possession of defendants had been given to them by the consolidation authorities and the rest was in possession of the plaintiffs. DW 3 has stated that he did not know as to how much land out of 9 Kanals 7 Marlas has been given to the defendants by the consolidation authorities. DW 4 has also admitted in cross-examination that about two years back the defendants had constructed a roofless bathak in the disputed Khasra number. His statement was recorded on 26-7-1983 which means that in the year 1982 the petitioners occupied some portion of the land during the pendency of the suit. DW 1 has also admitted in cross-examination that the plaintiffs are in possession of the said land and had built structure therein. The statements of other DWs also do not inspire confidence as in the cross-examination they have stated about their ignorance about the real dispute. Apart from this there is documentary evidence consisting of Ex.P1 to Ex. P.3. Ext. P.1 is copy of the register Haqdaran which shows area of disputed land as 9 Kanals 7 Marlas out of which 3 Kanals have been described as 'Ghair Mumkin Abadi' another 3 Kanals as Mazrua, and 3 Kanals 7 Marlas as 'Nul Chahi'. It has also been shown in possession of the respondents. Ext. P2 is 'Naqsha Aks Killa Bandi' and Ext. P3 is copy of Khasra Girdawari which proves the possession of the respondents and the description of the land given is the same as in Ext. P 1. The present petitioners produced Ext.
D 2 which is copy of Khasra girdaari from Kharif 1973 to Kharif 1974 which contains the description of the land in dispute as in Ex.P1 and it is shown in possession of one Qudrat Ullah Khan from whom admittedly the respondents purchased the land and a note with reference to number of mutation has been given in red ink about the sale of land by Qudrat Ullah Khan to the respondents. The dispute between the parties was contested before the consolidation authorities also wherein the petitioners were allowed to retain an area of 3 Kanals which is described as 'ghair mumkin abadi' by order dated 10-2-1981 passed by Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Lahore which was challenged by the petitioners before Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore through revision petition which was dismissed on 16-9-1981. Copy of which is Ex. P4. The plea of the petitioners regarding the remaining land in dispute was disallowed. The petitioners also produced Ex. D 3 a copy of 'Fard Haqiat Bandobast' 1967-1968. I have gone through this document. It does not in any way advance the case of the petitioners and the learned counsel for the petitioners did not refer this document during arguments and rightly so. Since it was found by the learned trial Court that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners occupied a portion of land in dispute therefore, in the changed circumstances which took place during the pendency of the suit, he rightly also passed a decree for mandatory injunction for removal of the construction raised by the petitioners.
In this regard the respondents made an application for taking action against the petitioners for violation of order of temporary injunction but the learned trial Court did not proceed against the petitioners for good reasons. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit was originally filed for an area of land 9 Kanals 7 Marlas, which was subsequently by amendment reduced to 6 Kanals 7 Marlas therefore, the suit of the respondents would be held to be false, has no force. As is clear from the discussion above, an area of 3 Kanals which is described as 'Ghair Mumkin Abadi' which was in possession of petitioners was also given to them in consolidation proceedings therefore, the respondents if amended the plaint to restrict the suit for the remaining land A measuring 6 Kanals 7 Marlas, was not by itself a factor to non-suit them. They have proved the case through documentary as well as oral evidence which has been corroborated by evidence of petitioners themselves as discussed above. The petitioners miserably failed to prove even their mere possession over the suit land much less adverse possession maturing into ownership.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to convince me that there was any misreading of the record and the evidence produced by the parties or that the Courts below have committed any material irregularity amounting to illegality in the exercise of their jurisdiction while deciding the suit against the petitioners. No case therefore, having been made out for interference in revisional jurisdiction, in. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below against the petitioners, therefore revision petition must fail and it is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.