' This Civil Revision calls in question the judgment and decree dated 19-6-1999 of the learned Additional District Judge, Rajanpur whereby he allowed the appeal of the respondent and after setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 8-2-1996 of the learned Civil Judge, Rajanpur, dismissed the suit of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner filed a suit for possession of the suit land claiming title in the same and stating that the respondent had forcibly occupied the same. The respondent in his written statement stated that the petitioner has sold the suit land to one Abdullah vide a registered sale deed, dated 20-10-1981 and that the respondent purchased the same from Abdulalh vide a registered sale- deed, dated 26-6-1990. Other allegations in the plaint were denied. The learned trial Court framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties. The suit of the petitioner was decreed vide a judgment and decree, dated 8-2-1996. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed an appeal which was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Rajanpur who allowed the same and dismissed the suit of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel contends that the learned Additional District Judge failed to read the evidence on record while reversing the judgment of the learned trial Court.
4. I have gone through the certified copies of the record appended with this Civil Revision. I find that in the suit referred to in the plaint, the precise contention of the respondent and his co-plaintiff was that the petitioner had agreed to sell the suit land comprising Khata No, 1341/87 to the respondent but had illegally sold the same in favour of Abdullah. One finds a reference to the abovementioned sale-deed, dated 20-10-1981 in the plaint Exh. P.1. It was this suit that was dismissed as a result of award Exh.P-5. The suit was so dismissed on 8-7-1985. Later, it appears that the respondent managed to convince the said Abdullah to transfer the said land to him which was accordingly transferred vide a sale-deed, dated 26-6-1990 (Exh.P-4). The petitioner appeared as P.W.1 in the present suit and admitted that he had sold the 5 Marlas' plot to Abdullah through registered sale deed No, 728 i,e, Exh. P-10. The sale in favour of respondent by Abdullah vide sale-deed Exh.P-4 is with reference to the sale-deed Exh.P-10. In this state of affairs, the learned Additional District Judge correctly came to the conclusion that the respondent is vested with title in the land in his occupation. The other reason given by the learned Additional District Judge for non-suiting the petitioner is also supported by law declared by this Court in the case of "Muhammad Shaft etc. v.
Cbllector, etc." NLR 1980 AC 243, wherein, a learned Division Bench of this Court observed that where a joint owner takes possession of a portion of the joint land then the other co-owner, if he is aggrieved, can either bring a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 or a regular suit for partition. The petitioner had admitted as P.W.1 that after his alleged dispossession in the year 1985, he did not file any suit for possession other than the present one. As a suit under section 9 (ibid) has to be filed within 6 months of alleged dispossession, the only remedy petitioner has is one suggested by the learned Additional District Judge i,e, a suit for partition.
5. No grounds have been made-out for interference in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge under section 115, C.P.C. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed in limine.