This petition has been filed under section 115, C.P.C. For the revision of the judgment and decree dated 10-7-1990 passed by the Additional District Judge (I), Haripur whereby he confirmed the judgment and decree of Civil Judge, Haripur dated 27-3-1988 through which the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed.
2. The plaintiffs had brought a suit for declaration to the effect that the defendants/respondents are joint owners along with them but the change brought about in the shares of parties in the suit property in the Revenue Record is illegal and void and merits to be corrected to the extent of original shares.
3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation are that the parties are joint owners in the suit land entered as Khasra No.1174 measuring 1 Kanal 9 Marlas in the Jamabandi (record of rights) pertaining to years 1950-51 and 1955-56. According to the record, respondent-defendant No.1 enjoys 1 share, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.2 to 4 and respondent No.5 are owners of 2 equal shares while the petitioners/plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and Mst. Hussain Jan predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff No.3 are shown as owners of one share and respondents Nos.6 and 7 are shown, in equal share, having 1 share in all. The controversy arose when in the Jamabandi of 1969-70 the share of respondent No. 1 was shown as two shares instead of one share as previously shown in the original record referred to above. The present suit was brought for correction of this entry.
4. The defendants-respondents were summoned who appeared in the Court and contested the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner. The rival claims gave rise to as many as 7 issues on the basis of which evidence was adduced by both the parties and the same was recorded and placed on record by the learned trial Court. The suit of the plaintiff-petitioner was dismissed on 27-3-1988. The plaintiffs-petitioners preferred Civil Appeal No.57/13 of 1988 in the Court of Additional District Judge (1), Haripur but met with no better success and the same was also dismissed on 10-7-1990. Not content therewith, the plaintiffs/ petitioners have now come to this Court on the present revision petition.
5. I have heard the counsel for the rival parties and have given my anxious mind to the record of the case which is very brief and only one material point is involved in the whole case.
6. It may be stated at the very outset, that the respondents-defendants have neither challenged the share and rights of the plaintiffs/petitioners nor have they denied the extent of their share and ownership. The rest of the evidence, and, even the Revenue Record tends to confirm the stand of the petitioners/plaintiffs as regards the share claimed by them. For, the averments of the petitioners/plaintiffs have not been substantially denied from any quarter. The only consideration which weighed with the two Courts below was that the increase from one share to two shares in favour of the respondent/defendant No.1 has not affected the ownership rights or the extent of share of the petitioners/plaintiffs and on this score alone the suit was dismissed down right. But, at the same time, the learned two Courts have also held that the extent of share in the suit property belonging to the respondent/defendant No.1 has been increased from one share to two shares. The suit property is a sum total of landed property measured in Kanals and Marlas. It is essential to bear in mind that the suit property constitutes of one block and no property can be imported into this block. Similarly, a block of land cannot be inflated as well. The block of land is permanent and the respective shares of the owners in the property enjoy element of permanency. Increase in shares would either be the result of accretion in the sum total of the property involved in the block of land or shall be result of chopping of some portion from one share and adding the same to other share. It is a question of common sense that without the two methods referred to above share of one co-owner cannot increase or inflate. In the present case if the share of respondent No.1 has been increased from 1/10 share to 2/10 share (from one share to two shares) then there must be some explanation for that as to how it so happened. Whether some new property has been added to the said block of land or one of the co-owner was given some property to the present respondent. The record of the case is destitute of the material to explain this enigmatic position. In absence of clear and distinct explanation to this effect the increased share may, at some stage, give rise to a maze of proceedings relating to the land involved in each share. I, therefore, feel that this controversy must be resolved once for all. The twin questions, firstly as to how the share of respondent No.1 has increased from one share to two shares without affecting the shares of the other co-owners must be answered positively. Secondly, the share of each shareholder must also be determined to ensure the extent of the share of present petitioner in terms of measurement of land.
7. In view of the aforesaid observations I accept this revision petition and remand the case to the trial Court for clear and specific determination of the shares of all the co-owners along with measurement of land involved in each share. However, having regard to the nature of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.