' This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 26-1-1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby he confirmed the judgment and decree dated 15-12-1984 passed by the learned Civil Judge Gujar Khan whereby he dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners against the defendants/respondents.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that Muhammad Sharif defendant/respondent No,1 is son of Gheba, a paternal uncle of plaintiffs/petitioners while Abdul Rashid defendant/respondent No,2 is brother of the plaintiffs/petitioners. They (plaintiffs/ petitioners) claim the suit property (i,e, house) to be joint property of all of them in which their share comes to 1/3rd, that defendant/respondent No,2 alienated a Kothri to Meer Dad, as such he (Meer Dad) was also impleaded as defendant, that defendant/respondent No,1 is in league with defendant/respondent No,2 and got a suit filed from him to deprive them of the suit property and got the suit dismissed, that they cannot pull on with defendants/respondents Nos.1 and 2, as such partition is sought. The defendant/respondent No,1 contested the suit and denied the claim of the plaintiffs/ petitioners by asserting that they had no locus standi to file this suit, that he has become owner by adverse possession, that the plaint is deficiently stamped. The defendant/ respondent No,2 was proceeded ex parte. The defendant/respondent No,3 Meer Dad filed a consent written statement.
3. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the house under suit is the joint property of the plaintiffs and defendants? If so, what are the shares of the plaintiffs?
(2) In case issue No,1 is proved, whether the share of defendant No,2 in favour of defendant No,3 is binding on the parties?
(3) What is the effect of previous litigation between defendan, to Nos.1 and 2 on the rights of the plaintiffs? OPD.
(4) Whether the site-plan is incorrect? OPD.
(5) Whether the suit is insufficiently valued for the purposes of court-fee? OPD.
(6) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to bring the suit? OPD.
(7) Whether the defendant No,1 has matured adverse possession over the suit property? OPD.
(8) Relief.
4. In support of their contentions, the plaintiffs/petitioners examined Muhammad Hussain P.W.1, Fazal Dad P.W.2 and Muhammad Ramzan appeared as P.W.3. In rebuttal, the contesting defendants/ respondents examined Lal Khan D.W.1 and appeared themselves as D.W.2 and D.W.3 respectively.
5. After going through the evidence produced by the parties, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners who felt -aggrieved and filed an appeal which also met the same fate at the hands of Appellate Court. Hence the instant civil revision.
6. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
7. The only point urged by learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners is that both the Courts below have non-suited the petitioners on the ground that they had alienated their share in favour of Meer Dad vide an agreement Exh.D2 and as such, had no locus standi to file this suit. He argued that the said findings are not warranted by law as the Courts below could not place reliance on the said document being inadmissible under Article 79 of Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984, under section 35 of the Stamp Act and under section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. He canvassed that even the protection available under section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was not available to the contesting defendant/respondent No,1 and Courts below have not exercised the jurisdiction vested in them in accordance with law and places reliance upon Habibur Rehman and another v. Mst.
Wandania and another (PLD 1984 SC 424) and Kanwal Nain and 3 others, v. Fateh Khan and others (PLD 1983 SC 53). He further argued that concurrent findings on question of fact can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction by High Court and relied upon Mst. Noor Nisa v. Abdus Salam and another (PLD 1982 Peshawar 42). He, thus, submitted that impugned judgments and decrees be set aside.
8. Conversely, contention of learned counsel for the defendant/respondent No,1 is that both the plaintiffs Muhammad Ramzan and Mehrban had alienated their share in favour of Abdul Rashid who on 18-11-1968 alienated the same in favour of Meer Dad, that later on, Abdul Rashid filed a suit against Muhammad Sharif claiming himself to be a joint owner in the suit property which was also dismissed on 17-10-1981, that even if the document Exh.D2 is taken out of consideration being inadmissible, even then the admission of P.W.1 Muhammad Hussain that the plaintiffs/petitioners had exchanged their share with Abdul Rashid is sufficient to dislodge them from seeking the relief of possession through partition in respect of the suit property. He, thus, submitted that both the Courts below have passed the impugned judgments and decrees in accordance with law.
9. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit for possession through partition, claiming themselves to be owners of 1/3rd share in the suit property. Their claim has been resisted by the defendant/respondent No,1 on the ground that the plaintiffs/petitioners have got no vested right in the suit property as they got their share exchanged with Abdul Rashid. In support of his contention, the defendant/ respondent No,1 brought on record a copy of the agreement Exh.D2 whereby the plaintiffs/ petitioners have got their share exchanged for land measuring 2 Kanals with defendant/ respondent No,2 Abdul Rashid. There is no doubt that the said agreement Exh.D.2 being unregistered and not properly stamped, could not be relied upon. But even if the said document is excluded from consideration, even then there is a clear cut admission of P.W.1 Muhammad Husain regarding the recitals contained in the said document. Again it has come on record that share obtained in exchange by defendant/respondent No,2 from the plaintiffs/petitioners was further sold to Meer Dad vide document, dated 18-11-1968. This being the factual position, the plaintiffs/ petitioners could not claim any share in the suit property. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not come to his residence, as the facts of said authorities are not identical to the facts in hand. There is no cavil to this proposition that if the Courts below had returned concurrent findings which are in direct conflict with the evidence oil record, this Court is competent to strike down that concurrent findings by invoking the provisions of section 115, C.P.C.
No misreading or non-reading of evidence on record has been pointed out or highlighted by the learned counsel for petitioners, as such even on this score, petitioners have no case.
10. The upshot of above discussion is that plaintiffs/petitioners failed to prove their entitlement in the suit property qua the defendant/respondent No,1, as both the Courts below have passed the impugned judgments and decrees in accordance with law. There is no force in the civil revision and the same in hereby dismissed.