CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the respondents Nos. 1 to 9 filed a suit against the petitioners on 9.4.1988 for declaration that sale-deed dated 31.8.1987, registered in favour of Mst. Manzooran Mai defendant/petitioner No. 2 is illegal, against facts and ineffective on their right and with the prayer of consequential relief that the possession of the said house along with the rent of the same on perpetual injunction for restraining the petitioner/defendant No. 2 from claiming the title of the disputed house. The present petitioners controverted the allegations in the plaint through their written statement. The trial Court out of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:- ISSUES:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are owner of the suit property and the claim of the defendants on the basis of registered sale-deed No. 5475, dated 31.8.1987 is against facts, against law and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit property? OPD.
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover rent from the defendants? OPP.
(4) Whether the defendants are not entitled to claim the property of Mst. Manzooran the OPP defendant No. 2 and to file any proceedings?
(5) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD.
(6) Whether the suit is defective and not maintainable? OPD. .
(7) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in hand? OPD.
(8) Whether this plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD.
(9) Whether the suit1 is insufficiently valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD.
(10) Whether the plaintiffs' suit is mala fide and liable to compensatory costs? OPD.
(11) Whether the suit is filed to damage the good-will of defendant No. 3, if so, its effect? OPD.
(12) Whether the suit is not maintainable for mis-joinder of facts and mis- joinder of cause of action? OPD.
(13) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.
(14) Whether the suit property is wrongly described, if so, its. Effect? OPD.
(15) Relief.
2. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 18.7.1992. The present petitioners aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, which was entrusted to Addl. District Judge, Multan, who vide his judgment and decree dated 17.12.1995 dismissed the appeal. It is pertinent to mention here that the material issue between the parties is issues Nos. 1 and 2. The leamed first Appellate Court gave finding on issue No. 1 to the following effect:- The disputed property is situated in Khasra No. 2688, as possession was delivered to the plaintiffs in that Khasra; Defendant No. 2 cannot claim her entire property in Khasra No. 2688 as she purchased only 2 marlas from that Khasra No. 2686.
3. The leamed counsel for the petitioners contended that both the Courts below misread the whole record, therefore, the findings of both the Courts below are result of non-reading of record. He further argued that both the Courts below on one side have declared petitioner No. 2 as co-sharer to the extent of 2 marlas out of Khasra No. 2688, but-at the same time have declared the respondents Nos. 1 to 9 as the owners of entire property in dispute rendering decision of both the Courts below has inconsistent and against evidence. He further argued that petitioner No. 2 is a joint sharer to the extent of 2 marlas in Khasra No. 2688, therefore, findings of both the Courts below were non-existent in the eyes of law to declare respondents Nos.. 1 to 9 as exclusive owners of specific portion of a joint khata and for ignoring an established principle of law that each co-sharer in the Khata is owner in each inch of the Khata and no co-sharer can be declared as an exclusive owner of the specific portion.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioners. The learned first appellate Court after appreciation of the evidence gave finding of fact on the basis of documentary evidence that the plaintiffs/respondents got the possession in J977 and at that time, secured the possession whereas the documentary' evidence reveals that the defendants/petitioner No. 2 purchased only 2 marlas from Khasra No. 2688 in 1987. Both the Courts below gave finding of fact after proper appreciation of evidence on record. The learned counsel failed to point out any portion of evidence or any document, which was misread by both the Courts below except the learned counsel as aforesaid stated that the petitioners were declared by both the Courts below owners of 2 marlas in the said Khasra- number i.e. 2688, therefore, to declare the respondents exclusive owner of the disputed land in question is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondents got the possession of the disputed land in question in 1977, whereas the petitioners purchased only 2 marlas from Khasra No. 2688 in 1987, therefore, the findings of both the Courts below are valid. The contentions raised by the learned counsel have no force. Finding of fact arrived by the two Courts below in revision petition cannot be disturbed unless and untill these findings are based on misreading or non-reading of record. Both the Courts below as mentioned above did not misread or non-read the record, therefore, concurrent finding of fact cannot be disturbed in revision petition while exercising jurisdiction u/S. 115 CPC. I am fortified by the judgment PLD 1983 S.C. 53.
5. In view of what has been discussed above, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.