1. ' The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession regarding land in question measuring 12 Marlas and 112 sq ft. Bearing property No . B-VI- 17-R-9-A/4 situated outside Kot Peeran within the limits of Municipal Committee Kasur. The title of the plaint reveals that the land in question was originally owned by the Lahore Prince of the Church of India. Respondent No,5/defendant No,2 purchased this property from the said Church through its General Attorney namely father J.D. Author vide sale-deed, dated 9-9-1981; thereafter, Mutation No,4931 was also sanctioned and attested in the name of respondent No, 5/defendant No, 2 on 5- 10-1981; respondent No,5 sold away the property in question to respondents Nos.1 to 4 for consideration of Rs,25,000 vide sale-deed, dated 5-8-1982. The petitioner/ defendant No,1 filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent No,5/defendant No,2 which was disposed of by learned Civil Judge, Kasur on 19-7-1984 to this effect; that respondent No,5/defendant No,2 should not dispossess petitioner from the suit property illegally and in an unlawful manner. The petitioner took possession of the suit property illegally and respondents Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession against the petitioner and respondent No,5/defendant No,2 on 6-3-1985.
2. Petitioner/defendant No,1 controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint while respondent No,5/defendant No,2 was proceeded ex parte on 15-4-1985. Out of the pleadings of the parties the Trial Court framed the following:--- ISSUES
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action for the present Suit? OPD.
(2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
(3) Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs under section 35-A of C.P.C.? OPD.
(4) Whether the plaintiffs are owner of the suit property, if so, whether they are entitled to have possession of the same? OPP.
3. (4-A) Whether the defendant No,1 is in adverse possession of the disputed land since last 25 years?
4. OPD.
5. 1.
6. (4-B) Whether the defendant No,1 has become owner of the disputed land by having adverse possession over the disputed land? OPD.
7. 1.
(5) Relief.
8. ' The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 20-9-1989; respondents Nos.1 to 5 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kasur, who entrusted the same to learned A.D.J., who accepted the appeal vide judgment and decree, dated 1-6-1998; hence the present revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that judgments of both the Courts are at variance; he further stated that 1st Appellate Court reversed the findings on Issues Nos.1 and 4 without adverting to the reasoning of the Trial Court; that 1st Appellate Court reversed the findings on Issues Nos.1 and 4 by misreading of evidence on record; that 1st Appellate Court misread the evidence on record; that 1st Appellate Court misconstrued the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence; that the petitioner/defendant is in possession of the land in question for more than twenty five years without any interruption, therefore, he has become owner of the property on the well-known principle of adverse possession; that judgment of 1st Appellate Court is against the law and facts; that respondents/plaintiffs could not prove their ownership qua the land in question on the ground that the respondents/plaintiffs have got registered sale-deed from Mutation No,4931, dated 5-10-1981 in which only the share of Khasra number, has been given qua the disputed property but the learned 1st Appellate Court did not advert to this aspect of the case at all; that respondent No,5 sold land in favour of respondents Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs through registered sale-deed mentioned the property number which was not mentioned in the first sale-deed but the 1st Appellate Court did not advert to this aspect of the case; he summed up his arguments that contents of plaint reveal that the petitioner/defendant occupied the suit land three years before challenging the suit; whereas Allah Din P.W.3 admitted in his evidence that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property from twenty to twenty two years; that the petitioner produced sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence on record to prove the version of the petitioner whereas the respondents failed to bring or record sufficient evidence to prove their ownership; the suit is barred by time b) virtue of Article 142 of the Limitation Ac but the 1st Appellate Court wrongly relies upon Article 144 of the Limitation Act therefore, findings of learned A.D.J. Is no sustainable in the eyes of law.
3. Learned counsel for respondent contended that title of the property was specifically described in the head note of the plaint and paragraph 1 of the plaint; where a the petitioner did not deny this fact Subsequently in written statement; the description of the property in question was specifically mentioned in the 1st sale-decree executed by respondent No,5 by J.D. Author and mutation was attested on 5-10-1981; that respondent No,5 sold the land to respondents Nos.1 to 4 with the same description of the property along with the property number and the mutation was also attested in favour of respondents; that the grounds mentioned in the memorandum of revision petition and the contentions of petitioner's counsel are beyond the pleadings of the parties, therefore, the contention of petitioner's counsel has no force on the well known principle that parties cannot go beyond their pleadings. He relied upon (1985 CLC 373), (1989 CLC 651). He further stated that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner qua the adverse possession; that ground of adverse possession is not available to the petitioner's counsel as the same has been declared against the Injunctions of Islam by the Hon'ble Federal Shariat Bench of Supreme Court; that ground for adverse possession is not available to the petitioner on the ground which must be in the knowledge of the opposite party but the petitioner failed to bring on record sufficient evidence to show that it was in the knowledge of the respondents; that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed property as a owner. He further states hat on Court's question D . W . 5 stated as follows:--- {{URDU TEXT}} ' He further stated that learned Trial Court Wrongly relied upon Article 142 of the Limitation Act beyond the pleadings of the parties on the ground of tenancy; that petitioner has filed suit against respondent No,5 mentioning the same property on 9-1-1982, therefore, petitioner is estopped to Controvert the same On the basis of the well-known principle of estoppel and waiver. The entries in the Excise and Taxation Department register are made without notice to the parties concerned and no presumption of absolutely genuineness can be raised in respect thereof.
9. ' In rebuttal petitioner's counsel stated that learned 1st Appellate Court did not advert to the question of limitation and the 1st sale-deed executed by J.D. Aurthor mentioned above, reveals that he has sold share of the Khata without determination of specific part of property; suit cannot be decreed in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is an admitted fact that property in question was sold by J.D.
10. Aurthor vide sale-deed, dated 5-9-1981 in favour of Dilawar Masih/respondent No,5/defendant No,2, who specifically described the property in question in the contents of sale-deed with Specific Number of the property.
11. ' Respondent No,5/defendant No,2 sold the same to respondents Nos.1 to 4 with property number along with description to the following effect:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The petitioner also filed suit against Dilawar Mehmood/respondent No,5 with the specific number of property along with description on 19-1-1982. The title/head note of the plaint and para.1 of the plaint of present suit also described the property in question but the petitioner did not controvert this fact in reply of para.1 of the plaint. The learned 1st Appellate Court, after proper appreciation of evidence of both the parties oral as well as documentary has given findings of fact in the following terms:-- "It is proved that the appellants have become owners of the suit property by virtue of sale-deed, dated 5-8-1982 Exh.P.5 as well as mutation Exh.P.6 attested on its basis. These documents remain unchallenged till today and hold the filed. Findings of learned Trial Court on this issue are set aside and the issue is decided in favour of the appellants."
12. Respondents Nos.1 and 4 described the property in question in head note of the plaint which is valid by virtue of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. It is settled proposition of law where a land conveyed is described by boundaries as well as by areas, if there is a difference between the boundaries and the area, it is settled law that the land actually comprised within the boundary will be treated to have been conveyed. I am fortified by (AIR 1926 Patna 257). The aforesaid proposition of law is also supported by the following judgments:- ' Sal. Aar' s case (PLD 1958 Lah. 569); ' IL& L. India's case (PLD 1965 SC 274); ' Mst. Nasim Akhtar's case (1986 CLC 1267); and ' Muhammad Suleman's case (1990 CLC 110).
13. ' The 1st Appellate Court after proper appreciation of evidence decided issues Nos.4-A and 4-B in favour of respondents. It is settled proposition of law that entries in Excise and Taxation Department's register are made without notice to the parties concerned and no presumption of absolutely genuineness can be raised in respect thereof. I am fortified by Mian Muhammad Amin's case (1982 CLC 1770). D.W.5 on Court's question has admitted in the following terms:" {{URDU TEXT}} ' The findings of the 1st Appellate Court is in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Hakim's case (1973 SCM R 284) and the relevant observation is as follows:--- "the mere entry in the Revenue Record would not, therefore, support the plea of adverse possession. It is well-settled that adverse possession must open overt and hostile to the knowledge of the true owner, if the person alleging such possession is to perfect his title by prescription.
14. I am also fortified by Abdul Ghafoor's case (1996 M LD 1263). Section 28 and Article 144 of the Limitation Act has already been declared against the Injunction of Islam by the Hon'ble Shariat Appellate Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maqbool Ahmed's case (1991 SCM R 2063). The learned 1st Appellate Court also decided Issue No,2 after proper appreciation of evidence in favour of respondents and in accordance with the principle laid down by the superior Courts; the finding of 1st Appellate Court is in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Noora's case (1992 SCM R 1610), Afzal Khan's case (PLD 1994 Quetta 26) and the relevant observation is as follows: "that the lawful owner of property cannot be non-suited on plea that opponent was in adverse possession for more than 12 years."
15. ' Reference can also be made in Shah Muhammad's case (NLR 1992 Civil Law Judgments 48).
4. As regards the findings of learned A.D.J. On Issues Nos.4, 4-A and 4-B, Issue No,2, Issue No,3 and Issue No,1, it may be noticed that in his capacity as Appellate Court, "the learned A.D.J. Possessed the jurisdiction to come to his own conclusion, on the basis of evidence adduced before the Trial Court by the parties and resultantly he could competently reversed the findings of the Trial Court on the question of facts involved in aforesaid issues. It is established proposition of law that findings on question of fact or of law, howsoever, erroneous the same may be, recorded by a Court of competent jurisdiction, cannot be interfered with by the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, under section 115, C.P.C., unless such findings suffer from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity. I am fortified by the judgment of Privy Council (PLD 1949 PC 126) and the relevant observation is as follows:--"This section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters:---
(i) that the order of the subordinate Courts is within its jurisdiction;
(ii) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction;
(iii) that in exercising jurisdiction the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error or procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. If The High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however, profoundly, from the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law."
16. In view of what has been discussed, no jurisdictional defect has, of course, been pointed out in this case and similarly no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment has been alleged. The upshot of above discussion is that there is no merit in this present civil revision which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.