JUDGMENTSYED JAMSHED ALI, J.- This Regular Second Appeal is directed against concurrent judgments of the learned Courts below whereby the suit for possession based on title filed by the respondents was decreed.
2. The facts are straight and simple. On 29.7.1975 the respondents filed a suit on the basis of their title in respect of land comprised in khars No. 14 of the square No. 86. The whole of this khasra number measures 1 Kanal and 4 marlas. The suit was contested by the appellants on the ground that they had become owners by adverse possession and that plaintiffs-respondents had nothing to do with the land where they had built their houses. Necessary issues were framed and the suit was tried.
3. Issue No. 1 (locus standi of plaintiffs), Issue No. 3 (description of suit property) and issue No. 6 (special costs) were not pressed by the appellants. It was found that the respondents-plaintiffs were owners of the land in dispute (issue No. 4) and the appellants were not able to prove adverse possession. Accordingly, the suit of the respondents was decreed on 31.5.1977.
4. On appeal filed by the appellants these findings were affirmed by the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura vide his judgment and decree dated 12.7.1977.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that it was not established that the appellants were occupying the land of the respondents. He contended that Ex. PI, the demarcation proceedings ought not to have been taken in to consideration because these were not conducted in accordance with rule 67-A of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 and if it was excluded then there was no evidence to show that the land of the respondents was in possession of the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants did not argue in favour of adverse possession because it would have been incompatible with his first contention.
6. That the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the matter stands concluded by concurrent findings of the to Courts not liable to interference in second appeal.
7. I have considered the submission made and have gone through the record. Even if Ex. PI, the demarcation done by the Girdawar is excluded, the fact remains that the title of the respondents to the suit land stands established and it has also been established that the land in dispute is in possession of the appellants. They had pleaded adverse possession in the written statement. The suit was in respect of the Khasra No. 14 of square No. 86, whole of which measure 1 Kanal and 4 Marlas as borne out by Ex. P2 "Register Haqdaran" for 1967-68 and it is owned by the respondents D.W. 1 Sardar Muhammad, DW. 2 Rehman admitted that the appellants were in possession of the disputed land. While DW. 1 stated that the appellants were in possession for the last 31 years, DW. 2 and DW. 3, Muhammad Shafi, one of the appellants claimed that they were in possession since partition of the sub-continent. Therefore, the contention that it was not established that appellants were not occupying respondents land has no force.
8. In this view of the matter, this appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.