' On 23-5-1982 Muhammad Shafi respondent filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction as consequential relief. He sought declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land through exchange between him and the petitioner/defendant. The suit was resisted whereon three issues were framed. The parties led their evidence. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 2-12-1984. Feeling aggrieved of this judgment and decree, the petitioner-defendant filed appeal which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal who dismissed the same on 29-7-1986, hence this revision.
2. Before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the finding of the learned Courts below on issue No. 3 alone which is as under:- "Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for? 0.P.P."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that oral as well as documentary evidence has been misread and misconstrued by the Courts below: that the oral evidence has wrongly been preferred to the documentary evidence supporting the case of the petitioner to which presumption of truth is attached and that the learned trial Court has failed to frame necessary issues arising from the pleadings of the parties. To substantiate his contentions, the learned counsel argued that the judgment of the learned Courts below suffered from misreading of documents i.e. Jamabandi Exh.P.1, Khasra Girdawaris Exhs. P.2, P.3 and P.4 and statements of Muhammad Shafi plaintiff and Maulvi Muhammad Sadiq P.W. 2 in that Jamabandi relating to year 1980-81 Exh.P.1 shows that Muhammad Shafi respondent-plaintiff is a tenant at will in Killas Nos. 4 and 7 and Muhammad Ishaq petitioner is tenant in Killas Nos. 9 and 20 and Muhammad Shafi is self cultivator in Killa No. 11 and that Muhammad Ishaq has been shown as owner of Killas Nos. 4 and 7 and Muhammad Shafi in Killas Nos. 11, 9 and 20; that Khasra Girdawari Exh.P.2 relating to period Kharif 1976 to Rabi 1977 also shows that Muhammad Ishaq petitioner entered into disputed land as tenant in Rabi 1977 as Killas No.9 and 20 are shown in his possession as tenant in Rabi 1977 and Killa No.11 is shown in possession of Muhammad Shafi plaintiff himself; that Khasra Girdawari Exh. P.3 from Kharif 1977 to Rabi 1981 shows that Muhammad Shafi respondent/plaintiff was tenant under the petitioner over Killas Nos.
84/4 and 7 and Muhammad Ishaq petitioner has been shown as tenant over half of Killa No.
9. Half of Killa No. 20 from Kharif 1977 and Killa No.11 has been shown in the tenancy of Muhammad Ishaq from Rabi 1978. Again in Killa No.9 in Rabi 1981 Muhammad Shafi has been shown as owner and self-cultivator over half of Killas Nos. 9 and 20. In the same Khasra Girdawari Muhammad Ishaq has been shown as co-sharer in Killa No. 9 in Rabi 1981. Khasra Girdawari Exh. P.4 relating to Rabi 1982 shows that Muhammad Ishaq has been mentioned as owner of Killas Nos. 9, 11 and 20 and Muhammad Ishaq has been mentioned as: {{urdu text}} ' In Killa No.9 and tenant in half of Killa No.11 and half of Killa No.20 whereas Muhammad Shafi has also been shown as cultivator in Killa No.9 and self-cultivator of half of Killas Nos. 11 and 20; that entries in Khasra Girdawari pertaining to Kharif 1977 to 1982 have been made by the Patwari with the collusion of Muhammad Shafi respondent as it was not his duty to make such entries with regard to exchange or as co-sharer without attestation of mutation by a Revenue Officer; that the learned trial Court has not properly read the evidence of. Muhammad Shafi plaintiff wherein he categorically stated that the exchange was effected 2i years before the date of his statement in the Court and that he was shown as tenant for 4/5 years after the exchange of the land; that Muhammad Shafi plaintiff in his statement has not mentioned the name of any person in whose presence, transaction of exchange was made. The learned counsel further submitted that although Maulvi Muhammad Siddiq P.W. 2 had stated that contract of exchange was made in his presence but Muhammad Shafi plaintiff has not mentioned his name as a witness of transaction of exchange; that Bashir P.W. 3 has stated that exchange took place in his presence but his name has also not been mentioned by Muhammad Shafi and Maulvi Muhammad Siddiq P.Ws., that although the P.Ws.. Have admitted in their statements that they were inimical towards the petitioner yet the trial Court has not taken into account the enmity of the witnesses with the petitioner; that while explaining his contention with regard to the non-framing of proper ssues, the learned counsel stated that although the defendant had stated in para. No. 2 of his written statement that: {{URDU TEXT}} ' et issue i.e. "whether the plaintiff was a tenant under the defendant etitioner?" has not been framed, Reliance has been placed on cases st. Hafizan v.Muhammad Yasin and 2 others 1985 CLC 1448, Azizur ehman v. Lahore Development Authority 1985 CLC 2028, Sundar ingh v. Chhaju Khan AIR 1934 Lah. 309, Jan Muhammad Khan v. Hah Mir Hussain and others 1985 SC MR 2029, Evacuee Trust Property Board v. Muhammad and 3 others 1985 CLC 905 and Said Muhammad v. Akbar Ali PLD 1966 (W.P.) (Rev.) 76.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care and have gone through the copies of the statements of the witnesses produced by the parties and documents Exhs.P.1 to P.4. The controversy between the parties relates to a question of fact. The respondent claims ownership through exchange as averred by him in the plaint whereas petitioner's case is that Muhammad Shafi was tenant over the disputed land. The learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court after applying their Conscious mind to the relevant oral as well as documentary evidence have concurrently found that Muhammad Shall respondent/plaintiff was in possession of the disputed land as owner under the exchange and that he was not tenant under the petitioner/defendant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of material evidence by the Courts below. Learned Courts below have read entries in the revenue record correctly. I do not see any misreading or non-reading of the revenue records by the Courts below. Both the Courts have read documentary evidence as it is. The learned Appellate Court has written an elaborate judgment wherein it has discussed relevant oral and documentary evidence. The learned Appellate Court has given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by him. As for the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that proper issues were not framed by the learned trial Court. I find that issue No. 3 covers the issue proposed by him because in rebuttal the petitioner 'could prove that the respondent/plaintiff was in fact a tenant as asserted by him in para No.2 of the written statement.
The A evidence led by the petitioner-defendant shows that he was fully alive to the controversy involved in the case and he produced evidence to prove that the petitioner was a tenant and not an owner through exchange. The petitioner did not make any application under Order XIV Rule 5, C.P.C. For framing additional issue. This shows that he was very much satisfied with the issues framed by the Court. The petitioner had not applied for framing the proposed issue and had also led evidence with regard to his plea raised in para. No. 2 of his written statement, therefore I am satisfied that no prejudice has been caused by not framing specific issue as to whether respondent-plaintiff was a tenant of the suit land or not. The other submissions made by the learned counsel do not make out a case for interference with the impugned judgment and decree, in exercise of revisional powers of this Court. The Courts below have not committed any error of law or of procedure. The impugned judgments are not based on an improper rejection of material evidence or misconstruction of documents or on an inference not warranted by oral or documentary evidence. It is well-settled that the party who seeks before the High Court to reverse concurrent findings of fact which have been arrived at by the learned trial Judge and have after consideration, been confirmed on appeal, comes always with a very heavy burden on its shoulders which the petitioner has not been able to discharge before me. I am satisfied that the concurrent findings of Courts below on issue No.3 are fully warranted by the facts on which the same are based.
' For what has been said above, it is not a fit case for interference with the impugned judgments and decrees in exercise of the revisional power of this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.