' Instant civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 10-5-1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal, whereby he confirmed the judgment and decree, dated 16-6-1985 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Talagang.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the suit property bearing No,90 and measuring 9 Marlas belonged to Jagat Narain son of Jugna evacuee owner. After the partition, it was occupied by Fazal son of Hafiz, who installed a flour machine in it. Later on it was allotted to him by the department.
The father of plaintiff/respondent purchased flour machine from Fazal son of Hafiz and obtained its possession. He later on purchased the said property vide sale-deed, dated 11-2-1982 for a sum of Rs,18,000. The defendant/ petitioner encroached the said property and as such Rapt No,5, dated 30-3-1982 was lodged against him. As the defendant/petitioner refused to hand over the suit property to the plaintiff/respondent, so he filed the instant suit for possession of the said property.
The said suit was resisted by the defendant/petitioner who raised few preliminary objections and asserted that he is in possession of the same through his father since 1960 under Scheme No,VII. He, thus, prayed for the dismissal of suit.
3. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property? OPP
(2) Whether the defendant has -taken over possession of the suit property illegally? OPP
(3) Whether the defendant has taken over the possession since long? OPD.
(4) Whether the defendant is entitled to special cost? OPD
(5) Relief.
' In support of his stand, the plaintiff/respondent examined P.W.1 Muhammad Bashir, P.W.2 Ghulam Hussain and appeared himself as P.W.3. He also produced copy of sale-deed Exh.P.3 and then closed his evidence. In rebuttal, the defendants/petitioners Khadim Hussain examined himself as D.W.1 and also examined Qamar-ud-Din and Abdul Haq as D.W.2 and D.W.3 respectively. They also produced copies of receipts Exhs.D.1 to D.3 and then closed their evidence.
4. After going through the evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent vide judgment and decree, dated 16-6-1985 which was assailed and was confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal vide judgment and decree, dated 10- 5-1986. Hence the instant civil revision.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6. The only point which requires determination is if the suit property belonged to Jagat Narain son of Jugna and after partition had been in possession of Fazal son of Hafiz who became its owner under Scheme No,VII and was consequently, allotted the same and that it was purchased by Fazal Din son of Lal Khan plaintiff/respondent.
7. Stand of the defendants/petitioners is that the disputed property was not in possession of Fazal son of Hafiz and as such question of its allotment and subsequent sale to Fazal Din son of Lal Khan does not arise. This contention is devoid of any force as it has been categorically admitted by D.W.1 (Khadim Hussain one of the defendants/petitioners) that the property originally belonged to Jagat Narain evacuee owner and after partition, it came in possession of Fazal son of Hafiz who later on installed a flour machine in this very property. In view of this admission of D.W.1, it stands proved that property in question originally belonged to Jagat Narain evacuee owner and Fazal son of Hafiz was in its possession after partition. This admission of D.W.1 further stands corroborated from copy of Survey Register Exh.P.2, which also proves that Fazal son of Hafiz was in possession of suit property after partition and a flour machine had been installed in it. Thus, the stand of defendant/petitioner that after partition it was in possession of his father under Scheme No,VII is devoid of any force. This property has been purchased by the present plaintiff/respondent vide sale-deed, dated 11-2-1982 Exh.P.3. As the defendant/petitioner encroached the suit property on 14- 2-1982, so the plaintiff/respondent lodged complaint Exh.P.1, dated 30-3-1982 against the present defendants/petitioners for said encroachment. All these facts clearly prove that the property as initially purchased and occupied by the plaintiff/respondent and was later on illegally occupied by the defendants/petitioners.
8. Learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners has also alleged that property in dispute could not be allotted to Fazal son of Hafiz. This contention is also devoid of any force as according to section 5, subsection (4) of Settlement Scheme No,VII, "all Kacha rural buildings in Second Category Areas and all rural buildings in Third Category Areas shall be deemed to have been transferred to the occupants free of charge". It is, thus, clear that whosoever was in possession of rural building is to be deemed to be an allottee of the same. Now as per admission of D.W.1, Fazal son of Hafiz was in possession of this property after partition, so he will be deemed to be its allottee as per subsection (4) of section 5 of Settlement Scheme No,VII.
9. Learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners has also submitted that findings of the trial Court are not based on correct appraisal of the evidence and as such, it needs reappraisal. This contention is also devoid of any force as concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be disturbed by High Court either in second appeal or in revisional jurisdiction, unless Courts below while recording finding of fact had either misread the evidence or had ignored any material piece of evidence on record or the same was perverse. Jurisdiction of High Court is narrow and the fact that on reappraisal a different conclusion can be drawn is no ground to interfere with a finding of fact muchless a concurrent finding recorded by Courts below and reliance is placed upon Haji Muhammad Din.v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994- SC 291 and Sirbaland v. Allah Loke and others 1996 SCM R 575.
10. Last but not the least learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners has also prayed that he may be allowed to adduce additional evidence in the form of survey register as the same is necessary for the adjudication of the matter in issue. This petition has been resisted by the other side. A perusal of the document sought to be produced reveals that it pertains to property bearing No,90, of which 6 Marlas is in possession of Fazal Din son of Lal Khan whereas 1 Marla is in possession of Abdul Rehman son of Mehr Khan. As per this document Fazal Din son of Lal Khan has been shown in possession of 2 Marlas, whereas stand of the defendants/petitioners is that Fazal Din son of Lal Khan plaintiff/respondent has never been in possession of this property. Thus, this document does not advance the cause of defendant/petitioner and on the other hand it runs counter to his stand. The Appellate Court has rightly declined his said request vide order, dated 10- 2-1986 which requires no interference at this stage.
11. In the light of facts stated above, it is proved that both the Courts below have returned findings in accordance with law. The instant civil revision is devoid of any force and the same is hereby dismissed.