RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSH1D, J.-- Mehr Din Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for possession regarding an area measuring 25 square feet (10x' 2-'V2) situated in Khasra No. 817/568/1 in the Grain Market, SillanwaJi, Tehsil and District Sargodha, against the defendants/respondents on the ground that they had made illegal encroachment on the said area. It was contended in the suit that the plaintiff/petitioner was owner of 66 square feet 8 inch in the aforesaid Khasra, whereas the respondent/defendant Mst. Ghafooran Bibi was an illegal occupation of the adjoining provincial land. She was evicted by the government from the aforesaid illegally possessed area. She, however, perpetuated her possession over the aforesaid property of the Petitioner/plaintiff.
2. The suit in the Court below was resisted on the ground that the property was jointly held by him with Abdul Rashid. The suit for possession was alleged to be incompetent as the same could not be determined without the demarcation of the property in question qua the shares of the parties therein. In this regard, it was contended that previously Khasra No. 817/568 was a consolidated Khasra out of which a portion was transferred to Muhammad Umar from whom it was purchased by Abdul Rashid and as .Such jt was not in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff/petitioner. A number of other objections were raised, but the material controversial issue between the parties was related to the ownership of Khasra in dispute.
3. The learned Civil Judge decreed the suit in favour of the Petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that it was owned by him and was encroached upon by the respondents to the extent of the area given in the plaint. In appeal filed by respondent No. 2 namely Muhammad Khurshid against Mehr Din plaintiff/petitioner and Mst. Ghafooran Bibi aforesaid, the judgment and decree of the leamed trial Court were accordingly set aside on the ground that the Khasra in dispute was jointly held and an executable decree could not be passed without its proper demarcation.
4. The property in question owned by the Petitioner/plaintiff and thereby committed an encroachment. The suit-plan attached with the plaint was prepared by a private Agency, which had been seriously disputed by the respondent/defendant. In that event, it is to be seen as to what was the actual position of the property in question before a dispute had arisen between the parties. The entries in the Jamabandi Ext. P 3 clearly show that there was another portion of Khasra number in dispute which was given in column No. 5 of the aforesaid Jamabandi as 817/568/2 measuring 66- 3/4 square feet and was categorized as "Ghair Mumkin Dokaan". There is nothing in this document which may .Show that the Petitioner/plaintiff is the owner of Khasra No. 817/568/2.
He claims his entitlement in Khasra No. 817/568/1 which has not been mentioned in this document.
However, in Jamabandi Ext. P.4, the Petitioner/plaintiff is shown to be in possession of Khasra No. 817/568/1 measuring 66-3/4 sq. Feet and the property is described as "(............. )" Of the Grain Market.
It, therefore, follows that there are two different Khasra numbers, one of Mehr Din petitioner and the other in possession of Muhammad Umar, although the Khautonis are different. A copy of mutation No. 1927 dated 30-12-1975 is produced as Ext. P.
11. It shows that the owner of Khasra No. 817/568 was the Central Government and the area measures 2-marlas, 55-1/4 feet was shown as "(............. Out of that Khasra. a portion measuring 66'-8" was transferred to the Petitioner/plaintiff as Khasra No. 817/568/1 vide P.T.O. No. 6216 dated 6-1-1965. It, therefore, follows that Khasra No. 817/568 was a joint Khasra, out of which two Khasra were marked out which were Khasra No. 817/568/1 and 817/568/2 and the same were transferred to Mehr Din petitioner and one to Muhammad Umar respectively. The certified Fard Tatimma' based upon the aforesaid mutation shows that Khasra No. 817/568/1 measures 6" - 8" on its northern and southern side whereas 10' x 10 on its ea#ern and western side, and thus makes a total of 66'-8". This portion is in possession of the Petitioner/plaintiff and there appears to be no encroachment either shown in the 'Tatimma or in any document except the site-plan Ext. P: 1 attached with the plaint. However, that site-plan does not tally with the official record and as such it has no authenticity as compared to the aforesaid ' Tatimma and the entries made in the revenue record. Proceeding further, it will be clear from the register Haqdaran.
For the year 1978-79 that Muhammad Umar s/o Muhammad Yaqoob was also in possession of a shop in Khasra No. 817/968/2 measuring 0-66-3/41 It also. Shows that it was in his self-possession.
Likewise, mutation Ext. P.11 would show that Abdul Ghafoor s/o .Abdul Rasheed was in possession of some different property other than in Khasra number in dispute which had been alleged by the petitioner to be encroached upon. In Ext. P.18 Mehr Din petitioner is shown in possession of his shop without any encroachment. Though Mst. Ghafooran Bibi respondent is down as an encroacher but the same is shown in respect of Khasra No. 564/63/5 which is a different property whereas the property claimed by the Petitioner/plaintiff is shown in Khasra No. 817/568/1. Likewise, copy of the revenue daily diary relating to the year 1982 Ext, P.19 also shows that the encroachment relates to different Khasra number other than, the Khasra in dispute. As such, the claim of the Petitioner/plaintiff, regarding encroachment on his property is clearly belied by the documents discussed above. Similarly transfer deed Ext. D.3 shows that previously Khasra No, 817/568 existed in the shape of a plot out of which a portion was transferred to Muhammad Umar which was further transferred to Abdul Rashid, a-brother of the Petitioner/plaintiff. This also shows that Abdul Rashid had acquired a share in the aforesaid Khasra which was determined as Khasra No. 817/568/2 which too is a different property as it had no concern with Khasra No. 817/568/1 in possession of the Petitioner/plaintiff.
6. The documentary evidence discussed above is of salutary effect to determine the matter in issue than the oral evidence which has tried to support the claim of each of the party. However, there remains to doubt that the Petitioner/plaintiff is in possession of the property which has been transferred to hint vide Khasra No. 817/568/1, but has not been able to prove that there was any encroachment measuring 10'x 2J/; ((Fraction))' as shown in the site-plan Ext. P.I.
7. In view of my above discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment of the leamed lower Appellate Court and the same is upheld. As a consequence, the suit of the Petitioner/plaintiff stands dismissed. The revision petition having no merit is also dismissed with costs.