MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J. -- In this revision, petitioners/plaintiffs challenged the correctness of judgment and decree dated 10.5.1986 passed by the Addl. 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.
2. 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 Pemaish 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 Pind Arain that a landless person can use the land of a land-owner 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 Addl. 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
(6) 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 Ex.P-1 site-plan, Ex.P-2 Khasra Pemaish-e-Abadi, Ex.P-3 Wajbul Arz, Ex.P-4 and P-6 copies of record of rights-and Ex.P-5 copy of pedigree-table. Except this evidence the petitioners produced Muhammad Munir son of Hashim PW-I, Mian Ahmad Din PW-2, Fazal-ur-Rehman PW-3. Allah Rakha one of the plaintiffs appeared as PW-4. To establish the ownership of the property in dispute learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on Ex.P-1 site-plan, Khasra Pemaish-e-Abadi Ex.P-2, copy of record of rights Ex.P-4, 6 and Pedigree-table Ex.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 DW-1 Muhammad A.I, DW-2 Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Sharif respondent No. 1 was not sufficient to rebut the evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that the documents Ex.P-I, P-2, 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 Ex.P-2, Ex.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 A.I father of defendant/respondent No. 1.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Ex.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 he inferred that he was not present at the site and this report was made in his absence. Ex.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. Ex.P-4. Wajabul Arz Ex.P-3 is also not helpful to the petitioners. It only shows that Budda was son of Umer Bakhsh and grand son of Sudagir. In fact, the land in dispute was situated in Ahadi Deh and no record was available with the revenue authority nor was produced in evidence, so the revenue authority could democrate Only the agricultural land of the village and not the immovable property of Ahadi Deh. The report Ex.P-2 Pemaish-e- Ahadi 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 gave 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 he considered in evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners had failed to point out any other misreading/nonreading 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 A.I, 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. I was on the plaintiffs/petitioners. The Courts below had rightly given opinion to the effect that the petitioners failed to prove Issue No. I 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 seems to he correct that the property was belonging to Barkat A.I 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 orders as to costs