' The disputed area measure 1-1/2 Marlas situated at Daulat Nagar, District Gujrat. Case of the contesting respondent No,1, Raja Khushi Muhammad, is that Ghulam Muhammad, his father purchased the disputed land from the evacuees before 1947. In this behalf reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on Annexure D/5, a copy of the sale-deed. The contesting respondent was illegally dispossessed by the petitioners from the said property. Accordingly, a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, was instituted by the respondent No,1 for restoration of his possession against the petitioners before the learned Civil Judge, Gujrat. The learned Civil Judge after recording evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that possession of the disputed land was with respondent No,1 and that he was illegally dispossessed from it by the present petitioners. This judgment and decree was assailed by the petitioners by filing a revision petition before the learned District Judge which was heard and dismissed by him on 8-5-1990.
2. Learned counsel contend:, that respondent No,1 has wholly failed to establish that he was in possession of the land in question and that he was dispossessed by the present petitioners forcibly and illegally from the property in question. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent has drawn attention of the Court to Ex.D/5, a copy of the sale-deed which shows that possession passed on to the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No,1 by the original owner. This document of title has been believed by the learned trial as well as by the learned revisional Courts. The two learned Courts below have also believed the statements made by Mehr Ghulam Rasool P.W.1, Mubarik Ali P.W.2 and Raja Muhammad Afzal, Special Attorney of respondent No,1 P.W.3. The evidence produced by the present petitioners was rejected by the Courts below. This is a finding of fact having been arrived at by the competent Courts. No misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is established that possession of the land in question was with the respondent and he was illegally dispossessed by the petitioners.
In this view of the matter, possession has rightly been restored to respondent No,1. No legal flaw much less jurisdictional defect has been pointed out by the learned counsel. The petition being devoid of force is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.