This revision petition is directed against judgment and decree dated 1-12-1991 passed by learned District Judge, Lahore through which appeal filed by the petitioner against judgment and decree dated 31-3-1990 passed by learned trial Court decreeing the suit of the respondents, was dismissed, has been challenged.
2. The property in dispute was owned by Mst. Sughra Begum/respondent No.10. Mst. Hajra Bibi deceased predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 9 filed suit against the present petitioner (defendant No.l) and respondent No.10 (defendant No.2) for declaration that she was owner in possession of the land in dispute on the basis of sale-deed dated 28-4-1936 executed by Sughra Begum in her favour for an amount of Rs.2,000.00 over which houses had been constructed on 20 Marlas 57 square feet. He also claimed adverse possession in the alternative. The present petitioner who is step-son of Mst. Sughra Bibi claims to have purchased the same property through registered sale-deed dated 5-2-1946. The possession of Mst. Hajra Bibi deceased was admitted over the property in dispute. The suit against Sughra Bibi defendant No.2 was dismissed by the leaned trial Court on 30-6-1985 on the ground that process fee had not been deposited, a review of which order was sought but the same was declined.
3. The learned trial Court framed issues arising from the pleadings of the petitioner and Mst. Hajra Bibi deceased/plaintiff. After considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, elaborately and carefully, the learned trial Court through judgment and decree dated 31-3- 1990 decreed the suit of Mst. Hajra Bibi. It was held that Mst. Hajra Bibi deceased had become owner of property by way of adverse possession. This judgment was challenged in appeal by the present petitioner which has been dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court through judgment dated 1-12-1991.
4. The learned lower appellate Court held that though the sale-deed dated 5-2-1946 relied upon by the petitioner was more than 30 years old but since the same was shown to have not been executed by Sughra Bibi directly but his attorney Dilawar Hussain therefore no presumption in favour of its execution could be raised unless it was established that Dilawar Hussain was in fact duly constituted attorney of Sughra Bibi as no presumption could be raised in respect of the authority vesting in the attorney. The document Exh.Pl relied upon by the respondent though was unregistered but was presumed to be genuine being more than 30 years old coupled with the fact that since 1936 she had been continuously in possession of the property and had been dealing with the same as owner. She in the year 1963 mortgaged the same and thereafter redeemed the said mortgage. She spent amount over the construction of the house to the knowledge of all concerned.
In the record of Excise and Taxation Department name of Mst. Hajra Bibi was recorded as owner.
She also produced water bill Exh. P.2. to Exh. P.6 and also the mortgage-deed. Respondents of adjoining houses were examined to establish possession of Mst. Hajra Bibi over the property in dispute since 1936. The petitioner when appeared as D.W. 3 admitted that Mst. Hajra Bibi had been in possession of the property since 1936.
5. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, I am not persuaded to take different view that Mst. Sughra Bibi executed document Exh. Pl in favour of Mst. Hajra Bibi who had been in possession of the property as such and it was recorded in the Khasra Amarti a copy of which was produced as Exh. Pl as in such a case the plea of adverse possession as an alternative plea could be raised which according to established law has been held to be not inconsistent with the plea of ownership based on title as held in judgment reported as Abdul Aziz v. The Multan Electric Supply Company Limited (PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lah. 614).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner when questioned as to how on the basis of sale-deed of 1946 which has not been duly proved and in the absence of proof of authority of Dilawar Hussain who executed it on behalf of Mst. Sughra Bibi he could be treated to be-the owner had no answer. He only submitted that suit against Mst. Sughra Bibi was dismissed for non-deposit of process fee therefore at least against Mst. Sughra Bibi no decree could be passed. The petitioner being the only contesting defendant in view of he having claimed to have purchased property from Mst. Sughra Bibi therefore decree could be granted against him regarding this property. Mst. Sughra Bibi was made party in the appeal by the petitioner himself but she after having once appeared did not appear on the other dates of hearing. She has not opted to appear before this Court though she has been served as one of the respondents. Be that as it may, the petitioner has no locus standi to object to the decree passed in the suit against him and plead the case of Mst. Sughra Bibi.
7. The findings of fact recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. The revision petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.