1. ' Points requiring determination in the Civil revision filed at the instance of defendants were, 'whether the suit for possession filed against them was in time, and whether they held the land-in- dispute adversely for required period of time for ripening into their ownership rights on it. Lower appellate Court had agreed with the trial Court and maintained its decision by which it decreed the possession of the land-in-dispute in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents.
2. ' Land-in-dispute measured 12 Kanals, 15 Marlas comprised in Khasra No, 188 situated at Mauza Dajal in Tehsil and District Bhakkar. It was owned by the plaintiffs Rab Nawaz Khan and Mst. Bilquis Begum. It was adjusted to them in the process of consolidation of holdings in the village. It was possessed by the defendants-petitioneRs, On 23-7-1985, plaintiffs brought a suit for possession of the above piece of land from the petitioners in the Civil Court at Bhakkar. It was averred that a year before the filing of the suit, defendants trespassed upon the land-in-dispute and upon being asked to vacate failed to surrender its possession. Upon being served in the suit, defendants submitted a joint defence. Number of pleas were taken in defence. It was stated that the suit was barred by time; plaintiffs were estopped to sue for possession of the land; defendants held the land-in- dispute adversely for a period exceeding sixty years and were its owners; valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and-jurisdiction was incorrectly assessed and the marked value of the land was Rs,63,750 on which the plaintiffs were obliged to pay ad valorem court-fee and finally that the defendants were entitled to compensatory costs. On merits, plea of adverse possession on the land-in-dispute and consequent acquisition of ownership rights was reiterated.
3. ' Pleadings gave rise to following issues for determination:--
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for possession as prayed for in the headnote of the plaint? OPP
(2) Whether the suit is not within time? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their conduct to bring the suit? OPD
(4) Whether the defendants were in adverse possession for a period more than 60 years? If so, its effect? OPD
(5) Whether the suit was incorrectly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD
(6) Whether the defendants were entitled to Rs, 5,000 as special costs under section 35-A, C.P.C.?
OPD
(7) Relief.
4. ' Plaintiffs gave copies of revenue-papers, Exts. P.1 to P,6 in evidence and one of them, namely, Rab Nawaz recorded his own statement on oath, as P.W.1, in support of the plaint-case. On behalf of defendants, two witnesses gave evidence and one of them appeared as a party-witness in support of defence. Documents Exts. D.1 to D.9 consisting of copies of revenue-papers were also tendered in evidence. Upon review of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the trial Court found for the plaintiffs and decreed suit for possession in respect of the land-in-dispute in their favour on 14-6-1990. It was held that the defendants' possession on the land was permissive and not adverse and that the suit when instituted was within limitation; plaintiffs were owners of the land and were entitled to restoration of its possession upon vacation of trespass by the defendants; valuation for court-fee and jurisdiction proposed in the plaint was upheld and the defendants were not found entitled to special costs. In appeal by the defendants, decree passed by the trial Court was maintained and affirmed.
5. ' Two points were urged at the hearing. First point was that the suit was barred by limitation and the second point was that the defendants held the kind-in-dispute in hostile possession and had acquired ownership rights in it.
6. ' Upon examination of the existing records, the contentions were unsound and could not be upheld.
7. Evidence adduced at trial consisted of oral as well as documentary. P.W.1 deposed that the land- in-dispute was owned by him with Mst. Bilquis Begum and was trespassed upon by the defendants.
8. Defendants' version of the case was that the land was held by them adversely for the past several years without sharing its usufructs with any one. Oral evidence led in defence was of a usual kind and could not be credited for acceptance to base a title to the land on it. However, land records gave a clearer picture about ownership of the land and nature of possession on it by the defendants. It was common ground that Khasra No, 188 was carved out in consolidation out of previous eight Khasra Nos, 1182, 1183, 1185, 1186, 1187, 1188, 1197, 1198 and was adjusted to the plaintiffs in lieu of their land in the village. It was evident by Parcha Khatauni Paimaish Exh. P.5 that consolidations in the village took place in 1981-82. Khasra No, 188 was recorded in possession of Qadir Bakhsh son of Sohanra as "Ba Shara Malikan Bawaja Nautore." In the Jamabandi for the year 1983-84, plaintiffs were recorded owners of the land and Qadir Bakhsh as its `Qabiz' paying no rent for it. Extracts from Register Khasra-Girdawari Exts. P.2 to P.4 reiterated possession of Qadir Bakhsh son of Sohanra as `Qabiz' of the land "Ba Shara Malikan Bawaja Nautore." Exh. P.6 was the pedigree- table of aforesaid Qadir Bakhsh. Defendants were successors of the aforesaid Qadir Bakhsh. Copies of revenue papers particularly copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1964-65 showed that Qadir Bakhsh possessed a piece of land in Khata No,250 comprising a large area in it belonging to several owneRs, Khasra No, 188 adjusted to the plaintiffs in consolidations was proved to have no nexus with the piece of land in possession of Qadir Bakhsh in Khata No, 250. Obviously, the plaintiffs were given this land in adjustment of their land in the village. There was no evidence that the land.In Khasra No,188 was ever held adversely by Qadir Bakhsh or his predecessors and if so since when. Necessary records of linking Khasra number in dispute with the previous Khasra numbers allegedly held adversely by the defendants were missing in the case. Further, term "Qabiz" denoted assertion of adverse possession and in terms of paragraph 7.41(4) of the Land Records Manual could not have been entered without a mutation attested for it by the Revenue Officer, There was no mutation forthcoming on the record and the learned counsel did not refer to any either. Entry of `Qabiz', therefore, was unauthorized and carried little evidentiary value. Entry of `Qabiz' was recorded in Exh. P.S. Reckoned from it, the suit filed for possession in 1985 was clearly in time.
9. Elements of adverse possession were wanting in the case. Neither stealth nor force were recognised as a valid source for acquisition of title to the property in Islam. It abhorred such modes of acquisition and did not recognise it as a valid source of title to property. Adverse possession clearly lacked moral content, and, therefore, for its establishment required a very convincing and creditable evidence for supporting its necessary elements of openness and hostility to the knowledge of true owner. Plaintiffs gave evidence that the defendants occupied their land a year before the suit was filed by them. Revenue records established possession of Qadir Bakhsh since 1981-82 (Exh. P.5). Beyond that there was no evidence to support defendants' possession on the land comprised in Khasra No,188. Neither the possession of Qadir Bakhsh as "Qabiz Ba Shara Malikan Bawaja Nautore" constituted adverse possession nor had it ripened into his ownership rights for extinguishment of the rights of true owners of Khasra number in dispute. Therefore, I find myself in agreement with the lower Courts and dismiss the Civil Revision in limine.