MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.-This is an appeal by leave to appeal by a plaintiff in a suit for possession which was dismissed by the trial Court. The appellant's first appeal failed and his revision before the High Court also met the same fate. The High Court's judgment is dated 11-10- 1989, which has been called in question in this appeal.
2. The suit was for possession of land measuring 5 kanals, 2 marlas, situate in village Battal, Tehsil and District Manshera, allegedly encroached upon by the respondents. It formed part of Khasra No.1343 (old No.1177). In "Naqsha Tajawez", the site was allocated Khasra No.1343/1. According to the respondents, Khasra No.1343 belonging to the appellant had an area of measuring 1 kanal 13 marlas only, and that the land sued for formed part of the area owned by them. The position taken up by the respondents appears to be well-grounded. In the Revenue Record the land is described as Ghair Mumkin `Kassi'. From the perusal of the record we find that in the Jamabandi for the years 1904-1905 and subsequent Jamabandis upto 1940-41, Khasra No.1177, is shown as measuring 1 kanal, 13 marlas. However, in the Jamabandi for the year 1946-47 this Khasra number was re- numbered as 1343, and for the first time its area was entered as 10 kanals, 15 marlas. This point has been dealt with in the impugned judgment by the High Court, as under: " ....No reason is forthcoming on the record as to how the excess from 1 kanal 13 marlas to 10 kanals 15 marlas occurred in the area. The Khasra number adjoining the one in dispute had its old khasra No.1174 with an area of 89 kanals and is owned by defendants and in the latest settlement of 1946- 47 it has been given khasra Nos.1336 to 1342 all measuring 82 4 kanals 19 marlas. So a reduction of about 6 kanals has occurred in the area of these khasra numbers. It appears that the settlement staff has erred in the actual agreement of the khasra number owned by the plaintiff and the defendants. The Commissioner who was appointed to carry demarcation considered the area of Khasra No.1343 owned by the plaintiff as 10 kanals 15 marlas as it was so recorded in the Revenue Record and, therefore, found out the encroached area as 5 kanals 10 marlas much more than the actual area of 1 kanal 13 marlas of this khasra number."
Similar is the view taken by the trial Court and the learned District Judge.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has been asked as to how increase in the area all of a sudden took place. The reply given by him is that the Kassi changed its bed, resulting in accretion to the area of Khasra No.1343. This explanation in so far as the suit land is concerned can hardly be accepted. The record is silent about any such accretion. As noticed by the High Court, the area of adjoining khasra number, as per Jamabandi for the year 1946-47, owned by the respondents, has illegally been reduced by six kanals. This reduction has remained unexplained. The increase in the area of Khasra No.1343 thus, cannot be readily accepted. The entry appearing in the Jamabandi for the year 1946-47 relating to Khasra No.1343, with regard to area in dispute, therefore, has got to be discarded.
4. The case may also be examined from another angle. The question as to whether the land in dispute belongs to the appellant and was encroached upon by the respondents is a question of fact, on which all the Courts below returned a concurrent finding against the appellant. He has failed to make out a case to justify interference with such a finding of this Court.
There is no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed, but the parties are left to bear their own costs.