' In this revision, petitioners/plaintiffs challenged the correctness of judgment and decree dated 10- 5-1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot, whereby the judgment and decree dated 19-12-1985 passed by the Civil Judge, Sialkot dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, was upheld.
' The facts leading to the present revision petition are, that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the suit land after demolishing construction and removal of the ' Debris/Malba' measuring 5 Marlas, serial No,82 of Khasra Pimaish of Mauza Nawan Pind Arain, Tehsil Sialkot, in the Court of Civil Judge, Sialkot against the respondents/ defendants. The suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners was that predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had given 5 Marlas land to the respondents/defendant No,2 Lal Din for the construction of a house, who, was not land-holder in the Deh. Plaintiffs averred in the plaint that there was custom in Mauza Find Arain that a landless person can use the land of a landowner with his permission and at the time of shifting after removing Debris/Malba the land would be returned to original owner, and under this custom the disputed land was given by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/petitioners to said Lal Din.
He further alleged that without consent of the petitioners, defendant No,2 had made an agreement to sell with defendant No, 1 . Defendant No,1 contested the suit, filed written statement and denied the averments of the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed various issues and after recording evidence of the parties vide judgment and decree dated 19-12-1985 dismissed the suit.
3. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Sialkot, which was entrusted to the Additional District Judge, Sialkot for disposal, who, vide judgment and decree dated 10-5-1986 dismissed the same and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners had challenged the findings of the Courts below on Issues Nos.1 and 6; which are reproduced as under:--
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the disputed land? OPP
(2) Whether the agreement of sale by defendant No,2 in favour of defendant No,1 is legal and valid?
OPD ' He contended that the petitioners had produced documentary evidence Exh. P.1 site-plan, Exh.P.2 Khasra Pemaish-e-Abadi, Exh.P.3 Wajbul Arz, Exhs.P.4 and P.6 copies of record of rights and Exh.P.5 copy of pedigree-table. Except this evidence the petitioners produced Muhammad Munir son of Hashim P.W.1, Mian Ahmad Din P.W.2, Fazal-ur-Rehman P.W.3. Allah Rakha one of the plaintiffs appeared as P.W.4. To establish the ownership of the property in dispute learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on Exh.P.1 site-plan, Khasra Pemaish-e-Abadi Exh.P.2, copy of record of rights Exhs.P.4, 6 and Pedigree-table Exh.P.5 and contended that the Courts below had committed error in law in not adverting to the proposition of law that documentary evidence is not excluded by oral evidence, as the defendants/respondents did not produce any documentary evidence to rebut the document produced by the petitioners. The statements of D.W.1 Muhammad Ali, D.W.2 Muhammad Aslam' and Muhammad Sharif respondent No,1 were not sufficient to rebut the evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs.
5. On the order hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that the documents Exhs.P.1, P.5 and P.6 produced by the petitioners do not prove ownership of the suit property and the petitioners had failed to connect the suit property with the property mentioned in Exh.P.2, Exh.P.4 record of rights for the year 1970-71 and in the plaint no description of the property, Khatuni, Khewat, Khata etc. Was given. He further contended that this suit property was belonging to Barkat Ali father of defendant/respondent No, 1 .
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Exh.P.1 actually is demarcation report but the same has no evidentiary value because there is no mention of Khasra number, Khewat and Khata numbers etc., in the report. From the report it transpired that the defendant/respondent No,1 who was in possession of the house had not signed this report. It can be inferred that he was not present at the site and this report was made in his absence. Exh.P.4 record of rights pertains to the year 1970-71 of the land of Budda son of Umer Bakhsh but the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to connect the property in dispute with the property mentioned in this record of rights. The petitioners had miserably failed to prove that the property in dispute was a part of the land mentioned in the record of rights Exh.P.4. Wajabul Arz Exh.P.3 is also not helpful to the petitioners. It only shows that Budda was son of Umer Bakhsh and grandson of Sudagir. In fact, the land in dispute was situated in Abadi Deh and no record was available with the revenue authority nor was produced in evidence, so the revenue authority could demarcate only the agricultural land of the village and not the immovable property of Abadi Deh. The report Exh.P.2 Pemaish-e-Abadi is a report by the Local Commissioner, who had given his findings about the ownership of the land and I am afraid that how could he give his opinion without examining the record and he had made his opinion on the basis of statements of a few persons who were produced by the petitioners before him. Furthermore, the Commissioner was not produced in the Court for cross-examination, so as stated above, this report has no authority and cannot be considered in evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners had failed to point out any other misreading/non-reading of evidence by the Courts below or any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment and decree. No doubt the respondents/defendants had not produced any documentary evidence to establish his claim that this property in which the house was constructed belong to one Barkat Ali, who had gifted the same to defendant No,2. As the plaintiffs/petitioners failed to prove the ownership of the land in dispute, the onus to prove the Issue No,1 was on the plaintiffs/petitioners. The Courts below had rightly given opinion to the effect that the petitioners failed to prove Issue No,1 by producing cogent evidence. As the petitioners could not prove Issue No,1 to establish the ownership of the property and in such circumstances the presumption goes against them and the plea of the respondents/defendants seems to be correct that the property was belonging to Barkat Ali who gave it to defendant No,2. In revisional jurisdiction this Court cannot reappraise the evidence to come to a different conclusion; so concurrent findings of Courts below on question of facts are quite tenable and calls for no interference.
7. For the foregoing reasons, I feel that there is no merits in this revision petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Revisions .