1. The applicants filed a suit for declaration and possession of a plot bearing No. 248, situated in Bhutta village, Masan Road, Karachi. The plaintiffs claimed to be successors to one Khamisa, who was initially granted lease of plot in question on 2-6-1933 by the Collector, Karachi. Haji Suleman, brother of Khamisa has raised certain Katcha construction with the consent of Khamisa in 1956/57 and rented out two portions of the building to the defendants on payment of rent at the rate of Rs.
2. 6 per month. The defendants, in due course of time, refused to pay rent which necessitated filing of ejectment application under the Rent laws. The rent application was dismissed as, according to the Rent Controller, relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, did not exist. The plaintiffs did not succeed in the appeal as well. After entry in the record of rights was made in favour of the plaintiffs, they called upon the defendants to accept them as the landlords and pay them rent. The defendants refused to accept the plaintiffs as their landlord and, therefore, filed a suit, as stated above. On 29-10-1984, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs then preferred an appeal, which came up to be heard by the 11 Additional District Judge, Karachi West and decided on 9-4-1989. The Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal. It is against this judgment and decree that the present application under section 115, C.P.C. Has been filed.
3. Mr. Ismail Kassam, Advocate for the applicants, has mainly contended that both the Courts below have exercised their jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity as they have not taken into consideration documentary evidence, like Revenue Record, produced by the plaintiffs in support of their case. That both the Courts below have taken a wrong view of the value of such record and have relied on oral evidence led by the respondents in support of their case. He has referred to the cases of (i) Hazoor Bakhsh and others v. Abdul Rashid and others (1987 SCM R 1845), and (ii) Mir Haji A.I Ahmad Khan Talpur and others v. Government of Sindh and others (PLD 1976 Kar. 316).
4. This application was heard yesterday and was adjourned for today. On both the dates, the respondents and their advocates remained absent.
5. Entries in the Revenue Record are prima facie good evidence of title unless rebutted by some better evidence by the other side. In the present case oral evidence has been produced by the respondents as against the documentary evidence coming from public record produced by the applicants. Entries in the Revenue Records since 1933 in favour of the applicants remain unrebutted and could not be ignored.
6. This Revision Application is allowed with no order as to the costs.