' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--These three petitions, viz., Civil Petitions Nos.255, 256 and 257 of 1988, arise from a consolidated judgment of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 8- 2-1988.
2. The dispute relates to a house bearing No,SW-XXXI-3-SA-2/B, village Saidpur, Multan Road, Lahore. It was originally owned by one Shafaqat Ali who sold it to one Feroze Din in the year 1952 through a registered sale-deed. This sale was successfully pre-empted by Karam Din, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 9 in all the three petitions, and the decree in his favour was' sustained upto the level of the Supreme Court. After conclusion of this round of litigation, the said Karam Din got the possession of the suit house through execution. There was also criminal proceeding between the parties. This led to the filing of three suits, one by Abdul Wahid, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, claiming ownership of the suit house on the basis of adverse possession. A prayer for permanent injunction was also made. Respondents Nos.1 to 9 filed two suits, one for possession of the suit house and the other for recovery of a sum of Rs,5,400.00 as arrears of rent. All the suits were consolidated and the learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as 12 issues. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the learned trial Court decreed both the suits filed by the respondents vide its judgment, dated 14-11-1983 and also dismissed the suit filed by Abdul Wahid, predecessorin- interest of the petitioners, through the same judgment.
3. The petitioners filed a Regular First Appeal in the Lahore High Court against the dismissal of their suit and challenged the decrees granted in favour of the respondents (Nos.1 to 9) by way of two separate appeals before the District Judge, which were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, vide judgment, dated 4-11-1987. The petitioners then moved two Civil Revisions in the High Court. All these matters were taken up together by the High Court which were dismissed through the impugned judgment.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record. All the three Courts have considered the evidence produced by the parties for non-suiting the petitioners and we are not inclined to interfere with their findings. The onus to establish adverse possession over the suit house lay very heavily on the petitioners which they have miserably failed to discharge. The oral evidence which the petitioners produced was contradictory and discrepant and the documentary evidence, such as birth certificates, etc., on which much stress was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioners did not disclose the identity of the house in which the petitioners were residing and in which the children of Abdul Wahid (their predecessor-in-interest) were born. The petitioners have also failed to prove as to how and in what manner their predecessor-in-interest had obtained the possession of the suit house from Jhanda.
The admitted position about the ownership of the suit house, however, is that it originally belonged to one Shafqat Ali who had sold it through a sale-deed on 28-6-1952 at the hands of Feroze Din who was the father-in-law of Abdul Wahid, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The sale was pre-empted by Karam Din, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and it was decreed in his favour in 1962. This decree was sustained up to the level of the Supreme Court and its possession obtained by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents through execution proceedings. If Abdul Wahid, the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners, was the owner in possession of the suit house why did not he join his father-in-law in defending his title? His silence for all this period thus fully supports the findings of the Courts below that it was a collusive suit based on mala fides.
5. As a result of the above, all the three petitions are dismissed.