' This civil revision was directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-3-1987 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, accepted the appeal of the respondents and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 4-3-1986 of the learned trial Court, dismissed the suit filed by the present petitioners.
2. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioners filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute against the respondents with the averment that they had purchased the land measuring 319 Kanals 19 Marlas situated ii Karamabad Mashmula Vinjowali, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala from Mehmood Ahmed Khan, Hamid Ali Khan and Hamid Ahmed Khan sons of Siraj Din through registered sale-deed dated 31st January, 1973 and that they took possession of the said land which included the house in dispute as well. It is further averred that Khasra No,254 measuring 43 Kanals 12 Marlas was possessed by the plaintiffs-petitioners and that the defendants took forcible possession of a house which stands constructed on 3 Kanals 15 Marlas of the said Khasra number without any right. The suit was resisted by the defendants-respondents with the contentions that the suit was not maintainable in its present form, the suit was improperly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction and was also time-barred. It was further averred that the house in dispute was not sold and that the defendants-respondents are in possession of the same for the last more than 14 years and the house was constructed by their ancestors and they are in possession of the property in dispute in their own right. The learned trial Court after framing necessary issues and recording evidence decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 16-1- 1983 but on appeal of the defendants, the judgment and decree was set aside on 11-10-1984 and the matter was remanded after framing two additional issues, viz.: (5-A) Whether the defendants are co-sharers in the suit property? OPD.
(5-B) If issue No, 5-A is not proved, whether the defendants have perfected their title qua the suit property by means of adverse possession for more than 12 years? OPD.
' The issues earlier framed were on the question of maintainability, limitation, non-joinder of parties and valuation of the suit and on merits issue No,5 was "whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the suit property?" Learned trial Court after recording the evidence led by the parties on the additional issues again decreed the suit. The decree was set aside on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 2nd March, 1987, and as a consequence thereof the suit was dismissed. This led to the filing of the present revision petition by the plaintiffs through Hassan Muhammad attorney.
3. Learned counsel in support of the revision petition argued that Mst. Zubaida Khanum, respondent, did not claim herself to be owner' of the house or co-sharer in the alleged joint property in the suit for pre-emption filed by her. This suit failed up to the Supreme Court and as such the claim as being co-sharer merited to be rejected. It was next contended that the appellate Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record correctly and the findings have been recorded by ignoring material pieces of evidence. The reference was to the plaint of the pre- emption suit Exh.P2, judgment dated 28-7-1941 in the suit of Ghulam Haider Exh.P3, report of the local commission Exh.P.7, plain Exh.P7/1 and preliminary decree Exh.P.5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court are based on record. There is neither any misreading nor any non-reading of any material piece of evidence. It was also contended that the learned appellate Court was right in holding that the suit for possession was not maintainable as property was a joint property and the respondents are co-sharers; that the suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties as all the co-sharers had not been impleaded and that the identity of the property having not been established the reference to the pre-emption suit as well as to the decree dated 28-7-1941 and the other documents of the partition suit of Ghulam Haider are inconsequential.
4. I have considered the respective submissions of the parties and have also gone through the evidence on record which comprises of documentary as well as oral evidence. The documentary evidence referred to by the parties is Exhs.P.1 to P.7 and P.7/1 and Exhs. D.1 to D.15. The oral testimony comprises of the statements of Maulana Hamid Ali Khan PW.1, Hassan Muhammad P.W.2, and Hassan Ahmad P.W.3, whereas the defendants' witnesses are Nazir Hussain D.W.1, Umar Hayat D.W.2, Abdur Rashid D.W3, Usman Ali Khan, brother of the defendant D.W.4, and Mst. Zubaida Khanum D.W.5. The learned appellate Court inter alia held that boundaries of the house in dispute have not been proved and that the house in question has not been identified by producing concrete evidence with the result that it cannot be established that the partition decree 28-7-1941 Exh.P3 was ever got executed and that the preliminary decree and the final decree as well as the report of the Commission Exh.P.7 and the plain Exh.P.7/1 fail to show that the house in question fell to the share of the vendors of the petitioners. Same observations apply to the pre-emption suit filed by Mst. Zubaida Khanum. The house in dispute was not connected and identified. It is also important to note that preemption suit was filed by only Mst. Zubaida Khanum. The other two ladies were not party to the said suit. Moreover Mst. Zubaida Khanum appeared in the suit as D.W. 5 but she was not asked as to filing of the suit of pre-emption and as to whether the house in question was also subject-matter of the said suit. Again the finding that the respondents are the co-sharers in the property stands supported from the Jamabandis on record. Learned appellate Court was also right in observing that perusal of the sale-deed itself shows that the entire Khata had not been disposed of under the said sale-deed Exh.P.1. The shares of Mahmood Ahmad Khan, Hamid Ali Khan and Hamid Ahmed Khan respectively shown were 8/47, 8/47 and 10/47. It is also to be noted that despite the partition decree dated 28-7-1941 the Khata continued to be shown as joint in the Revenue Record for all these years. Another important factor noted by the learned appellate Court was that the suit was filed through Ghulam Muhammad, Special Attorney. The document appointing the said Special Attorney was not produced. Ghulam Muhammad the said attorney also failed to enter the witness-box. In his place Hassan Muhammad appeared as P.W.2 claiming to be the Special Attorney of the plaintiffs-petitioners but he too did not produce the power of attorney said to have been executed in his favour. It was on account of all these reasons that the learned appellate Court observed that the version of the plaintiffs contained in the plaint remained unsubstantiated in the lower Court as neither the plaintiffs nor any of their authorized agent entered the witness-box to support the said version. Moreover the recital in the sale-deed is that the possession of the house in question had been delivered but admittedly the possession is with the respondents and that is why the suit for possession was filed. This anomaly was sought to be explained by saying that the respondents had subsequently entered into possession of the house in dispute unauthorized but this assertion was not established by producing any reliable evidence.
The findings recorded by the learned appellate Court are based on evidence on record. Learned counsel faced with this situation submitted that the suit should be remanded for providing further opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence as sufficient evidence has not been produced though the same could have been produced. At this stage it may be mentioned that on the last date of hearing when the learned counsel for the respondents was to conclude his arguments a miscellaneous application was submitted on behalf of the petitioners seeking permission to produce additional evidence. This application being belated one and as the same was moved with a view to fill in the lacunas left in the evidence was rejected.
' The net result of the above discussion is that no justifiable exception can be taken to the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court. This revision is without merit and the same is dismissed with cost.