' The dispute between the parties relates to Ihata No. 74, covering an area of 14 Marlas, situated in Chak 81 Janubi, Tehsil and District Sargodha, which once constituted evacuee property. The respondents are refugees from India and claim to be in possession of a portion of the Ihata since immediately after independence. The other portion of the Ihata is in possession of the petitioner.
2. According to the petitioner, one Suleman Khan, son of Siraj Din, had been allotted the Ihata under Settlement Scheme No. VII on the 13th September, 1968, and he sold it to Zulfiqar Ali and Asghar Ali, sons of Muhammad Khan, for Rs.6,000 vide mutation of sale No. 199 which was sanctioned on the 18th September, 1971. The petitioner, Sultan Muhammad Khan, purchased the Ihata from Zulfiqar All and Asghar Ali by means of registered deed of sale on the 4th May, 1973, for Rs.4,500. Mutation No. 201 was attested on the 11th September, 1975, in respect of the last mentioned sale. The petitioner alleges that in 1976 he gave the Ihata for temporary residence to one Muhammad Yasin, son of Muhammad Sharif, but the respondents forcibly dispossessed him in January, 1977, and took over illegal possession of the Ihata. A criminal case for alleged commission of offence punishable under sections 451 and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code was registered against respondents 4 and 7 to 9 on the 14th November, 1977, at Police Station Bhagtanwala. Respondents 4, 7 to 9 were tried, convicted and sentenced by the Ilaqa Magistrate, Sargodha. Their appeal before the Court of Session failed. However, their revision petition was admitted by this Court which suspended their sentence and let them out on bail.
2a. Branding the respondents to be trespassers and in unlawful possession of the Ihata the petitioner instituted suit for recovery of possession thereof. The respondents contested the petitioner's claim and maintained that they had been in possession of the Ihata since soon after independence. They described the allotment of Ihata in favour of Suleman Khan to be invalid because under Settlement Scheme No. VII whoever was in possession of the Ihata was deemed to have become owner thereof.
3. The respondents brought suit against the petitioner for a declaration that they were owners and in possession of the Ihata in question and for the issuance of perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with their possession. They asserted that they had acquired ownership of the Ihata under Settlement Scheme No. VII. They demarcated the portion of the Ihata which had been under their possession and the other portion which Suleman Khan had occupied just after independence. The petitioner resisted the respondents suit mainly on the ground that it stood allotted to his predecessor-in-interest, Suleman Khan, on the 13th September, 1968, under Settlement Scheme No. VII and, therefore,the respondents could not lay any claim thereto.
4. A consolidated trial of both the suits was held by the learned Civil Judge, Sargodha, who, by his judgment of the 30th June, 1985, decreed the petitioner's suit and dismissed the one brought by the respondents. He was influenced by the fact that since the Ihata had been allotted to Suleman Khan, he in preference to the respondents, was entitled to become its owner. However, the appeals preferred by the respondents against the decrees passed in the two suits were accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, on the 22nd October, 1985. The learned Additional District Judge formed the view that according to Settlement Scheme No. VII, which indisputably applied to the Ihata in question, whoever, was in possession of any portion of the Ihata on the 1st January, 1961, was to become owner thereof and that there was no occasion nor legal justification for its allotment in favour of Suleman Khan in 1968. The said allotment, according to him was a redundant exercise and did not confer any right upon Suleman Khan in respect of the portion of the Ihata which was not under his occupation but was in possession of the respondents. As the respondents were found to be in possession of a portion of the Ihata since soon after independence they were declared to be owners thereof. The ownership of Suleman Khan in respect of the portion of Ihata which was in his possession on the Ist January, 1961, was accepted. The petitioner, being successor of Suleman Khan, was acknowledged owner of only the said portion of the Ihata and no more. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned jurisdiction of this Court.
He has challenged the validity of the appellate judgments and decrees by two separate revision petitions. They are to be disposed of by this order.
5. It is clear from the admissions made by Suleman Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, before the Settlement Authorities during the course of contentious proceedings between him and the respondents, adverted to by the learned appellate Court in its judgment, that the respondents had admittedly been in uninterrupted possession of a portion of the Ihata, which is under this. Occupation at the moment, since just after independence. The petitioner did nothing to displace the effect of such admissions by producing adequate evidence. Therefore, the view formulated by the learned Additional District Judge that the respondents being in possession of a portion of the Ihata on the 1st January, 1961, became owners thereof under Settlement Scheme No. VII is unexceptionable. The petitioner can claim ownership of the Ihata only to the extent of that portion which was in occupation of Suleman Khan on the 1st January, 1961, and of which he became owner by operation of law. The allotment of the Ihata in his favour made on the 13th September, 1968, could not confer upon him ownership of the Ihata because the respondents had already become owners of the portion of the Ihata in their possession on the 1st January, 1961. He could not reap any benefit out of the said allotment. Having himself no title to the entire Ihata he could not transfer it to Zulfiqar Ali and Asghar All and likewise they in turn could not convey the ownership of the entire Ihata to the petitioner. The impugned judgments of the learned Additional District Judge being in accord with law demand no interference in revision. This petition and the other bearing No. 1553/D of 1986 are dismissed in limine.