' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals by leave of the Court are that all the appellants, as also plaintiffs in two .Other suits, made suits for declaration praying that they are owners in possession of the disputed parcels of land situated in the revenue estate of Murree and that the respondents have no right over the suit-lands. The lands in dispute, according to the plaintiffs, were part of Khasra No,392 of Mouza Mosiyari and were 'Shamlat Leh'. All the plaintiffs further prayed that the entries in the Revenue Record showing that the Provincial Government was the owner of the suit land are incorrect and amenable to corrective processes in that regard and further prayed for injunction/s restraining the respondents from dispossessing them. The pleadings of the plaintiffs were controverted by the respondents who pleaded that Khasra No,392 vests absolutely in the Provincial Government and that the appellants/plaintiffs have encroached upon it. The learned trial Court consolidated all the cases and, mainly, the proceedings were taken in the suit of appellant in Civil Appeal No,165 of 1993. The pleadings of the parties are duly reflected in the issues in Suit No,269 which read thus: "ISSUES:
(1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
(2) Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness and non-joinder of parties?
(3) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suits?
(4) Whether the plaintiffs have not come with clean hands to the Court?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action?
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land and defendants have no right to interference with the same.
(7) Whether the plaintiffs have built houses or planted gardens in the suit land without any objection from the defendants? If so what is its effect?
(8) If the ownership of the plaintiff is not proved, whether the plaintiffs acquired title to the land by virtue of adverse possession?
(9) Whether the suit land has been validly acquired as per notification dated 7-8-1959, issued by the Provincial Government under section 42 of the Town Improvement Act?
(10) Whether the plaintiffs are tress-passers?
(11) Relief."
2. After recording evidence in Suit No,269 and some other suits as well, the learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Rawalpindi dismissed all the suits to the extent of declaration of ownership. As regards possession, the trial Court granted the injunction observing that it should not be disturbed while implementing the development scheme without compensating the plaintiffs for their constructions and planted trees as mentioned in Exh.C1. This happened on 8-4-1986. All the plaintiffs as also respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed 8 appeals each against the judgment and decree dated 8-4-1986. A learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi dismissed all the 8 appeals of the plaintiffs and accepted the appeals filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2. The result was that all the suits stood dismissed.
3. Only the present appellants filed Civil Revisions No,71-D of 1987, 72-D of 1987, 73-D of 1987, 74-D of 1987, 75-D of 1987 and 76-D of 1987 under section 115, C.P.C. But remaining unsuccessful before the High Court were granted leave to appeal on 24-4-1993. Paras. 3 and 4 of Leave Grant Order read thus: "3. Mi. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Courts below have completely ignored the documentary evidence produced on record. The learned counsel further contended that entries in the Record of Rights raise rebuttable presumption of title and as clear, cogent and (convincing) evidence was produced by the petitioners which rebutted the presumption the learned Courts below by completely ignoring the authentic evidence on record have caused injustice and committed irregularity of material nature. The learned counsel referred to the report dated 12-11-1982 at page 154 of the paper book which traces the history of the entire area right from 1860 to show that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners have remained in exclusive and peaceful possession of various parcels of land in their own right as owners of Shamilat Deh of village Mosari without paying anything to anyone. The learned counsel also referred to the document and fact admitted by the Government Officials that Rs,50 has been paid to the village landowners for over a century which is still paid, and is distributed among them. While referring to the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Exhs. P.1 and P.4 the learned counsel contended that the presumption attached to the entries in the Revenue Records regarding ownership of the Provincial Government was fully rebutted. The learned counsel further contended that in the face of the evidence produced by the petitioners, it was incumbent upon the Provincial Government to have produced documentary evidence to show in which circumstances and in what manner entries in its favour were made in the Revenue Record.
"4. To inter alia consider all these questions, we grant leave."
4. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Senior Advocate appearing in support of these appeals, has reiterated the pleas noted in para.3 of the Leave Grant Order dated 24-4-1993. According to him, the High Court was not quite right in holding that appellants' assertion regarding payment of Rs,50 by the respondent-Government as lease money to their ancestors would not advance their case any further as the contents of the Jamabandis for the years "..1884-85, 1905-06 and 1956-57 clearly demonstrate that the land vested in the respondent-Government, The oral assertion of the petitioners without any documentary corroboration would not suffice to disturb the respondent's title". Referring to Gul Khan v. Said Hussain Shah and others (PLD 1968 Peshawar 148) and Mst. Kaniz Fatima and 3 others v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 5 others (PLD 1973 Lahore 495) it was contended that according to the precedent cases respectively, neither the Jamabandis create nor extinguish title of any person, as such entries are merely evidence of title and the sanctioning of mutation/s incapable of creating title in favour of any person, as the purpose of mutation/s is to correct entries in the Revenue Record with a view to facilitating recovery of land revenue. The precise plea was that the Revenue Record/Jambandis, relied upon by the Courts below with a view to authenticating the title of the respondent-Government in line herewith, cannot be sustained and the appellants are entitled to the composite relief sought by them in their respective suits. It was further contended that the so-called development scheme, evidenced by Exh.D-3, prepared by the respondent/s, was beyond the purview of the Town.
Improvement Act (No,IV of 1922). According to him, no part of the land in dispute was, admittedly, acquired by respondent-Murree Improvement Trust. Even the respondent-Government did not transfer any right to the respondent-Murree Improvement Trust. Further, referring to clause 2(1) of the Scheme, empowering the respondent-Murree Improvement Trust to acquire land, it was argued that no such steps have been taken by it so far. The scheme was made in the year 1959 and beyond threatening the appellants' dispossession in the year 1974 by resorting to raising Pillars over the disputed lands/demarcating its boundaries then, no legal action whatsoever was taken against the appellants. The appellants are entitled to appropriate compensation for the acquisition of their rights and interests in the disputed land, under the Land Acquisition Act (No of 1894).
5. Ch. Muhammad Akram and Mr. Abdul Karim Kundi, learned counsel appearing, respectfully, for respondents Nos.1 and 2, supported the impugned judgment and decree. They were one on the question that the concurrent findings of the Courts below can hardly be interfered with by this Court. In this behalf, reliance was placed upon Sardar Anwar Ali Khan and 10 others v. Sardar Baqir Ali through legal heirs and 4 others (1992 SCMR 2435) in which it was held that entries in Revenue Record were correct when they showed ownership of the proprietors whose names found mention therein without the plaintiffs (in the precedent case) succeeding in proving their joint ownership with them: "These findings are essentially findings of fact and are not open to challenge at this stage when no illegality, jurisdictional error, or misreading, or non reading of evidence could be pointed out".
6. Mr. Abdul Karim Kundi, learned counsel representing respondent-Murree Improvement Trust also relied upon the following cases in support his plea that the entries in the Jamabandis being true the appellants have failed to make out a case for themselves: ' Nawab Ali and others v. Bajwant Singh and others (1995 CLC 1823); Qazi Mushtaq Hussain v. Mst.
Fazal Jan and 2 others (1986 CLC 1699); ' Abdul Rasool and 7 others v. Muhammad Nawaz and 4 others (1986 CLC 2261); ' Zar Khan and 8 others v. Faqir Gul and 4 others (PLD 1993 Peshawar 39); and ' Tanzeem Bazyabi-e-Haqooq Malkana-e-Orush, Abbottabd through General Secretary v. Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Abbottabad and 8 others (1992 CLC 382).
7. Mr. Abdul Karim Kundi has also objected to the appellants' plea that Exh.C-1 being report of the then learned Civil Judge dated 16-11-1981 provides any help to them. It was vehemently contended that both in the matter of appointment of Local Commissioner and the reading of the said Exh.C-1 in evidence without inviting objections thereto from the respondents are sufficient to discredit the case of the appellants. Reliance in this behalf was placed on Ahmad and others v. Nawab and others (1991 MLD 2050), Muhammad Bakhsh v. Nazam Din (PLD 1978 Lahore 31) and Sm. Mandera Mukherjee v. Sachindra Chandra Mukhrjee and others (AIR 1962 Patna 211).
8. Mr. Bashir Ahmed Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants took the rostrum to offer reply to the arguments on behalf of the respondents and contended that the payment of lease money by the respondent-Province of the Punjab took a beginning during the last Century and the acceptance of the title of the appellants remained current throughout the past. He also objected to respondents Nos.1 and 2 claiming benefit of the observations made by the learned Judge in Chambers to the effect that some earlier causes of similar nature having been resolved against the parties thereto upto the level of the High Court, the appellants could ill-afford to get out of the effect of the said judgment/s. His plea was that the appellants could not be denied the right/s to the disputed land on the basis of such ground/s.
9. We have also heard Mr. Shah Abdul Rashid, Advocate for applicants in C.M.P. No,130 (described to be in C.P.L.A. No,6 of 1993 which now bears Civil Appeal No,166 of 1993) seeking implement of Raza Muhammad Abbasi, Zahoor Ahmed and Masood Ahmed in the said cause.
10. We have considered the arguments addressed at the bar and have also been taken through the material available on the record. The perusal of the material clearly brings to the fore the fact that the entries in the Revenue Record generally and in the Jamabandis for the years 1884-85, 1905-06 and 1956-57 in particular show that the disputed land vests in the respondent- Government. The objection on behalf of the appellants to the reliance placed by all the Courts below on them to support the plea of the contesting respondents that the Government of the Punjab was the owner of the suit land has not impressed us.
12. We find that the three Courts below have rightly non-suited the appellants on the basis of the evidence/material on record. The appellants are themselves to blame for not producing documentary evidence in support of their cause/s that they and/or their ancestors were owners of the disputed land, up to date. We further find that their such failure attains higher proportions when considered in juxtaposition with the rejection of their application by the Appellate Court seeking production of additional evidence under Rule 27 of Order XLI, C.P.C. Even the reference made by the learned Judge in Chambers to the judgment in Civil Revision No,110-D of 1984 by the High Court that the case of the litigants similarly placed as the appellants had been decided earlier on almost the same evidence which was brought on the record of all the 8 suits, in these proceedings, by the parties.
13. Moreover, if the appellants took possession of any part of the disputed lands between the years 1884 and 1974, the same was at their own risk and peril. Their alternative claim of having acquired title by virtue of adverse possession, reflected in Issue No,8 above, also speaks volumes against them. If the appellants had failed to prove their ownership of the disputed and had further not even so much as led any evidence in substantiation of their claim of adverse possession, their fate appears to have been rightly sealed by all the Courts.
14. There is no need for making a detailed reference to the precedent cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties regarding the worth of entries in the Revenue Record and the value of Local Commissioners, report. Suffice it to say that the appellants had been non-suited for their failure to prove their case as unfolded by them in their pleadings and the choice of evidence before the Court. The peculiarities of the cause of the appellants were duly noticed by all the Courts below and it was in this context that their claim of title to the suit land was held not to have been proved. Similarly, the grant of injunction to them by the trial Court was recalled by a learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi which was upheld by the learned Judge in Chambers. The appellants have been rightly denied the reliefs of declaration and injunction on the ground that they did not produce documentary evidence in support thereof and such findings have not shown to be suffering from any taint whatever. The pleas of the appellants that the respondent-Murree Improvement Trust has not acquired the disputed land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the so. Called development scheme prepared by the respondents was beyond the purview of the Town Improvement Act, 1922 are no concern of the appellants. They have been non-suited for cogent reasons and, in that eventuality, the nexus between them and the official respondents i.e, respondents Nos.l and 2 stands snapped, legally.
15. All the three Courts below have concurrently held the respondent-Government as owners of the suit lands which findings are, in their own turn, supported by the entries in the Revenue Record pertaining to revenue estate of village Mosiyari. These findings being essentially findings of fact are not open to challenge. Moreso, when no illegality, jurisdictional defect and misreading or non- reading of evidence, has been pointed out by them.
16. The prayer of the interveners in C.M.P. No,130 of 1993 for their impleadment in Civil Appeal No,166 of 1993, after about a quarter of a Century of the commencement of this litigation, is totally misconceived and is disallowed.
17. Resultantly, finding no force in these appeals the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.