This Regular Second Appeal arises from the decree dated 18-6-1978 of the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, whereby the Plaintiff-appellant's First Appeal was dismissed.
2. The land in question was auctioned by the Provincial Government in 1937 and was apparently purchased by the respondents Sher and Shafi. The appellant who is their real brother brought this suit in 1969 maintaining that in fact the true purchaser of ,the land was their mother Mst. Sahib Bibi, defendant No.1 who had purchased it for all the -three of them and that the respondents by having obtained wrong entries in the revenue record were unreasonably denying his title. He asserted that he was even in joint possession of the land.
3. The mother Mst. Sahib Bib! Filed a confessional written statement while respondents Nos. 2 and 3 contested the suit denying if the land was purchased by their mother for all of them. According to them, they had themselves purchased the land and that the appellant had no interest in it.
4. Appropriate issues were framed by the trial Court, which ultimately dismissed the appellant's suit. So, was the first appeal dismissed.
5.Reliance was mainly placed upon Girdawar of the Canal Department Exh.P.2 supporting the appellant's possession as Ghair Dakheelkar since 1969 without paying Batai and the same was construed to be sufficient indication of the appellant's title. I don't think the A status as Ghair Dakheelkar without payment of Batai is synonymous with an owner. The entry is maintained by Canal Department and not by the Revenue Staff. It reveals a typical characteristic of the appellant's possession namely as a tenant. Non-payment of Batai alone is not a sure sign of acquiring title. The Revenue record like the Mutation Exh. P.3 attested on 25-2-1937 and the Jamabandi Exh.P.4 for the year 1967-68 reveal that respondents Sher and Shafi were owners of the land. These entries seem to have been maintained since 1932 when the land was initially auctioned by the Provincial Government. The present suit was brought in 1969, that is after a long time of about 40 years. The appellant did not make any effort so far to get his name entered as a co- owner. The confessional written statement filed by his mother is not enough, in that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 could still show that they were exclusive owners. The documentary evidence indeed lends support to their contention.
6. Mr. Aftab Rasool Mahar, Advocate for the respondents objected to the maintainability of Regular Second Appeal because of the concurrent findings of the Courts below in relation to a question of fact viz. Title of the respondents to the suit land. He added that there was no misreading of the evidence by the Courts below and that the evidence had been rightly appreciated to come to a finding against the appellant.
7.There is no gainsaying the fact that Issue No.7 which alone was concentrated upon in the impugned judgment recorded a finding of fact. It cannot be disturbed in the second appeal. It is consequently dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.