This civil revision under section 115 C.P.C arose out the suit for recovery of possession under section 8 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 filed by Mst. Gulzar Begum respondent. She claimed in the plaint that she is owner of land measuring 3 Kanals 8 Marlas, Khasra No.. 6/1, situated in village Mian Mir, Lahore Cantonment, having purchased the same from one Muhammad Bashir vide sale--deed dated 3-3-1976 and the land so purchased was mutated in her name in the revenue record vide mutation No. 541 dated 1-4-1976. It was averred that after raising construction over two Marlas the same was given to Raja Bashir and Raja Majeed, the licensees but some time thereafter they delivered the possession and then Sabir Hussain petitioner defendant trespassed into the house in dispute. Mst. Gulzar Begum with these averments claimed that she was entitled to recover the possession. The suit was resisted by the petitioner on various grounds besides denying the ownership of the respondent/plaintiff. The learned Trial Court after framing necessary issues recorded the evidence of the parties and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 3-5- 1988. The appeal of the petitioner also failed vide judgment and decree dated 31-7-1988. This led to the filing of the present revision petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the suit with the assistance of the learned counsel. The main plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that both the learned Courts below failed to read the material pieces of evidence and as such the conclusions are against the record as well as arbitrary. It was argued that the respondent has not been able to establish either the ownership or her right to recover possession. Mst. Gulzar Begum respondent claimed ownership on the basis of sale-deed dated 3-3--1976 executed by Muhammad Bashir, who in turn purchased the suit land alongwith other land from one Muhammad Riaz who in turn got the land transferred from the Settlement Department on the basis of P. T. D. Allegedly issued to him. This P.T.D. Was declared by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Administrator, Residual Property, as bogus vide order dated 7-12--1978. The respondent challenged this order dated 7-12-1978 by filing constitutional petition (W.P. No. 253/R of 1979) unsuccessfully as the same has been dismissed by me today. Thus the respondent/plaintiff stood deprived of the very foundation on which super-structure of the title claimed in the suit rested.
Even otherwise the findings returned by the learned Courts below are contrary to record. Pehalwan Khan General Attorney of the respondent appearing as PW 3 deposed that Bashir Hawaldar had taken the premises in dispute temporarily for one or two months and thereafter the same was got vacated through police but 2/3 days later he ,entered the premises after breaking open the locks.
He added that he submitted an application against him on which he left the premises after putting into possession Sabir Hussain, the present petitioner defendant. In cross-examination, however, Pehalwan PW 3 admitted that the premises in dispute were in possession of Noor Hussain for 20 years but he vacated thereafter. He denied the suggestion that the construction was raised by Noor Hussain. As against this Mian Riaz Bashir DW 2, Assistant Revenue Superintendent Lahore Cantonment Board deposed that Noor Hussain stood recorded as owner of the premises in dispute since 17th April, 1968 and thereafter since 10-4-1984 the name of Sabir Hussain was got entered as owner for the purpose of taxation. In cross-examination he stated that he had not checked the evidence pertaining to ownership of the parties, but added that photo copy of the agreement by which Noor Hussain had sold the superstructure is available on the record. The documentary evidence vie mutation No. 640 of 1979, Ex. D7 and the payment of the property tax receipts also were not adverted to by the learned Appellate Court. In fact, the learned Appellate Court was of the view that in view of the status quo order dated 5-6-1979 passed by this Court in the afore-noted writ petition the title of the respondent remained intact. In other words according to the learned Appellate Court the P.T.D. In favour of Riaz Ahmad has to be treated as valid. This approach of the learned Appellate Court was not correct as before the passing of the order of status quo the mutation in favour of Muhammad Riaz stood reviewed and the land was duly entered in the name of the Government earlier. Therefore, the position which prevailed then was misconstrued by the learned Additional District Judge. Be that as it may now with the dismissal of the constitutional petition filed by the respondent, the plea of title based on the sale-deed dated 3-3-1976 is no longer available and she, therefore ,is not entitled to claim possession on the basis of alleged ownership. Moreover, the premises in dispute have been included in Kachi Abadi and the same has been transferred to the persons in possession.
3. For all these reasons the respondent cannot claim possession of the premises in dispute. The not result of the above discussion is that the impugned judgments and decrees of both the learned Courts below are not sustainable and the same are, therefore, set aside with the result that the suit shall stand dismissed. The revision thus succeeds and is accepted with cost.
M.Y.H./S-489/L