1. ' Defendants in the civil suit for possession of a piece of land instituted by the respondents against them were petitioners in revision before this Court. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, on 2-4- 1989, and appeal preferred from its decree failed on 24-5-1993, in the Court of Additional District Judge, Narowal. Lower Courts found that the respondents were owners of the land in dispute; petitioners had illegally occupied it and were liable to vacate their possession to the rightful owners. Adverse possession asserted by the petitioners was not found proved on record by the lower Courts.
2. ' Respondents purchased the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 95, 96 from its previous owners through a registered sale-deed on 23-8-1984. Registered deed was implemented in revenue papers by attestation of mutation in their favour. Consequently, the names of the vendees- respondents were borne on the Jamabandi for the year 1986-87 marked Exh.P.4. There was no dispute that the land in above two Khasra numbers was allotted to and confirmed in the name of Muhammad Din and that it was subsequently sold to the respondents through a registered deed which was implemented in revenue records. Khasra No,96 measured 6 Kanals 8 Marlas. The area of land in Khasra No,95 was 4 Kanals 2 Marlas. The petitioners unauthorisedly occupied a portion of land out of Khasra No,96 measuring 1 Kanal 2 Marlas, and were shown to have constructed houses on it. On 4-7-1988, respondents, as purchasers of Khasra No,96 brought a civil suit against the petitioners to recover possession of the land in Khasra No,96 encroached upon by the petitioners, after removal of the Malba from it. It was averred that the petitioners had illegally occupied the land measuring 1 Kanal 2 Marlas out of Khasra No,96, approximately 4/5 years ago, and, had without any right or authority constructed on it. It was further averred that since the entry on possession of the disputed portion was unauthorised, as also the constructions on it by the petitioners, respondents were entitled to restoration of the possession of their land free from the unauthorised constructions made by the petitioners. Upon being served, petitioners entered defence and submitted a written statement. Their defence was that they were in possession of the disputed portion of the land unauthorisedly and had prescribed for ownership rights in it, on account of holding adverse possession on it for a period exceeding 12 years.
3. ' Pleadings gave rise to followings issues:--
(1) Whether the defendants have become owners of the land in dispute being in adverse possession for more than 12 years? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree prayed for, as regards the land in dispute, being the owners? OPP.
4. (3-A) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction?
5. OPD.
(4) Relief.
6. ' On behalf of the plaintiffs, three witnesses were produced and one of them, namely, Hafiz Abdul Hameed as a party-witness appeared in support of their case. In addition, demarcation report Exh.P.1, Akas Shajra Exh.P.2, Site plan Exh. P.3, copy of Jamabandi pertaining to land in dispute for the year 1986-87, Exh.P4 were tendered in evidence. For the petitioners, Ghulam Hussain defendant No,2 gave his own statement and he was supported by two D.Ws., namely, Sardar Khan and Muhammad Riaz. In furtherance of oral evidence, copies of Jamabandi for the year 1970-71 Exh.D.1, 1978-79 Exh. D.2, 1982-83 Exh.D.3, 1986-87 Exh.D.4 and extracts from Register Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 1975 to Rabi 1988 (four leaves) Exh.D.5 were produced and the evidence was finally closed.
7. Upon review of the above oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that adverse possession for a requisite period of time on the land in dispute claimed by the petitioners was not established, and, consequently gave decree for Khas possession of the land in dispute to the respondents, who were found and adjudged its true owners. In appeal, finding on adverse possession was maintained and affirmed.
8. ' Only point urged at the hearing requiring decision in the revision petition was, whether the petitioners were successful to establish their adverse possession on the land in dispute for acquiring hostile ownership rights in it against the true owners.
9. ' On a correct reading of record, petitioners had miserably failed to prove that they ever held the land in dispute in assertion of an open, uninterrupted hostile title qua the true owners. Two of their witnesses, namely, Sardar Khan D.W.2 and Muhammad Riaz D.W.3 in their cross-examination unequivocally conceded that Gohar, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, occupied the land as a tenant holding under Muhammad Din, eversince the year 1947. It is interesting to note that D.W.2 was paternal cousin of the petitioners and he had no reason to depose against them. He appeared to be a truthful witness. His testimony was consistent with the entries in the revenue records. In the Jamabandi for the year 1970-71 Exh. D.1; an extract from Register Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 1975 to Kharif 1983 Exh.D.5, Jamabandi for the year 1978-79 Exh.D.2, Jamabandi for the year 1982-83 Exh.D.3, Gohar son of Elahi Bakhsh was recorded as non-occupancy tenant of the land paying Batai rent to Muhammad Din and his successors. Out of the land measuring 6 Kanals 8 Marlas in Khasra No,96, 1 Kanal 8 Marlas was shown under a Ghair Mumkin Haveli for the first time, in Kharif 1979. In the Jamabandi for the year 1986-87, Noor Din son of Feroze Din was recorded as non-occupancy tenant of the land in Khasra No,96 holding under the respondents. Neither the oral evidence adduced in the case nor the entries in the revenue papers sustained adverse possession by the petitioners on the land in dispute. Gohar was father of the petitioners. He was in occupation of the land in Khasra No,96 as the tenant of the owner. His possession of the land was clearly permissive. Unless he or his successors first relinquished the permissive possession of the land held by them as tenant and re-entered on it in assertion of an open hostile title to the knowledge of true owner, their mere oral assertion of the title could not make their possession adverse to the respondents. Practically, there was no evidence to support petitioners' adverse possession on the land in dispute. Their oral assertion, no manner how forceful it was, could not convert their permissive possession into adverse for ripening it into the ownership rights of the land in dispute.
10. Necessary elements of adverse possession were clearly wanting in this case. The construction raised on a piece of land in dispute by the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest was a wholly unauthorised act and could not invest them with either moral or legal right to squat upon the land belonging to the respondents. I have said already that the possession of the petitioners on the land in dispute was clearly admitted. In raising the plea of adverse possession for acquisition of prescriptive title, a party is deemed to have admitted his possession on the property and the ownership rights of the other, whose title was sought to be transferred to them on account of their hostile possession for a required period of time. Force and stealth were not proper props for building rights to the property owned by others. More recently, the Supreme Court of Pakistan struck down section 28 of the Limitation Act as unlslamic. This took away the bottom from the plea of adverse possession taken by the petitioners. Having regard to the present state of record, I have no doubt that the lower Courts rightly adjudged the case in favour of respondents and directed the petitioners to vacate their possession on the land in dispute after removal of Malba from it.
11. ' In result of the above, civil revision is dismissed in limine. Records be returned.