On 12-12-1987, Muhammad Siddique filed suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit land and the registered sale-deed dated 8-1---1977 in favour of Ahmad Din, Allah Wasaya petitioners/defendants was void, illegal, ineffective against his rights. The suit was resisted whereon 12 issues were framed. The parties led their evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit on 12-12- -1987. The appeal filed by Ahmad Din and Allah Wasaya petitioners against this judgment and decree failed on 31-5-1988. Hence this revision.
2. The learned counsel for petitioners contended that the judgments of the Courts below suffer from misreading/non-reading of the material evidence which supported the case of the petitioners; that the admission made by Muhammad Siddique respondent that he had no concern with the suit land has not been considered; that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and that since the petitioners are in continuous possession of the suit land since 1957, the suit could not have been decreed in favour of the respondent.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I find that the Courts below have concurrently found the material issues against the petitioners; that the Courts below have anxiously attended .To the relevant evidence and have given sound and cogent reasons for believing/disbelieving the evidence. The learned counsel has not been able to point out misreading/non-reading of material evidence by the Courts below. In his examination-in-chief Muhammad Siddique has clearly stated that he had purchased the suit land vide registered sale- deed in the year 1976. He has specifically given the Khata number of the land purchased by him. He stated that' he was already in possession of the suit land when he purchased the same. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the disputed land is part of joint Khata. As such, it cannot be said that Muhammad Siddique has no concern with the suit land. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the judgments of the Courts below.
4. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the revision is dismissed in limine.
H.B.T/A-793/L