' It was sometime in 1980 when the respondent applied for the demarcation of the suit land and during the proceedings held by the revenue authorities in case No,89/Rev: dated 22-6-1980 and decided on 5-11-1980 it was found that the petitioners had encroached upon the land contiguous to their's but admittedly belonging to the plaintiff-respondent. Subsequent to the said demarcation proceedings, it transpires that some criminal proceedings were initiated and ultimately the plaintiff-respondent brought a formal suit for possession of the encroached land. Finding the parties at variance on issues, the learned trial Court recorded such evidence as were adduced by the parties in support of their pleadings and passed a decree for possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the petitioner-defendants with costs vide his judgment dated 18-2-1982.
2. In appeal the learned District Judge affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide his judgment, dated 10-9-1983 with no order as to costs. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard Mr. Ghufran Khalid, Advocate counsel for the petitioner-defendants and Mr. Ejaz Afzal, Advocate counsel for the plaintiff-respondent at length and have also perused the record of the case with considerable degree of care.
4. The scope of controversy, between the parties narrows down to two issues, namely, issues Nos.2 and 3 which respectively pertain to the question whether the' suit is within time and whether the defendants have matured tide over the suit Ind through adverse possession for more than 12 years.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners took me through the evidence of the parties and pointed out the so-called admission made by Ajab Khan, brother and attorney of plaintiff Miskeen whereby he has purportedly admitted the possession of the suit land by the petitioner-defendants for more than 12 years. On the other hand the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent drew my attention to the deposition of D.W.1 Maroof wherein he could not specify the period of his possession as clearly as the law demands and according to the learned counsel, mere oral assertion in h1s regard can be of no avail to them.
6. It is an admitted proposition of law that question of limitation as also the question of ownership by adverse possession are primarily the questions of fact which, if decided by both the learned lower Courts concurrently, cannot be interfered with in the revisionel jurisdiction unless suffering from any jurisdictional error.
7. In the instant case too, we are confronted with an identical situation. Both the learned lower Courts have 'recorded a concurrent finding of fact on issues Nos. 2 and 3. In this context of the matter there is no escape from the conclusion that the judgments and decrees of both the learned lower Courts cannot be interfered with. No jurisdictional error and such material irregularity in the proceeding is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to pursuade me to exercise discretionary powers of this Court under section 115, C.P.C. In favour of the petitioners.
8. Finding thus no force in this revision petition, I dismiss it accordingly with costs throughout.