SHAIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J.-- This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.7.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gujranwala whereby he dismissed the appeal filed against judgment and decree dated 4.2.1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Gujranwala.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction on 27.2.1994 against the defendants/respondents claiming themselves to he in possession of land measuring 9 marlas bearing Khasra No. 1024 situated in village Garjakh Tehsil and District Gujranwala. They claimed their ownership on the basis of sale deed executed in their favour on 13.4.1993. They alleged that defendant /respondent No. 1 was posing himself as owner of suit land on the basis of mutation dated 21.6.1979 whereby he (defendant/respondent No. 1) claimed to have acquired proprietary rights from defendant/respondent No. 2 vide letter No. 564- FACN/GRW-101-SW/78, issued on the subject. They asserted that said letter and mutation stood declared as illegal in two civil suits filed by Muhammad Faiz etc. And Muhammad Hanif etc against the Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala vide judgment and decree dated 19.3.1989 which was up held by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala vide his judgment and decree dated 31.7.1990. They prayed that they he declared as lawful owners of the property and defendants/respondents be restrainid from interfering in their possession. The suit was contested by defendant/respondent No. 1 whereas defendant/respondent No. 2 was proceeded ex parte,
3. From the divergent pleadings of the parties the Trial Court framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the suit is barred in view of preliminary objection No. 1 ? OPD.
(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form ? OPD.
(3) Whether the defendant No. 2 is made party with mala fide ? OPD.
(4) Whether the defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit land ? OPD.
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land ? OPP.
(6) Relief.
4. In support of their stand plaintiffs/petitioners examined Haji Muhammad Ashraf as PW-1 and brought on record documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 and thereafter closed their evidence. As none appeared on behalf of the defendant/respondents so their evidence was closed.
5. After going through the evidence produced by parties the Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 4.2.1998 which was assailed by way of appeal which also failed vide judgment and decree dated 1.7.1999. Hence the instant civil revision.
6. Preliminary arguments have been heard and record perused.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners is that regarding this very property civil suits were filed against defendants/respondents which were decreed on 19.3.1989 and the appeal thereof was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala on 31.7.1990, that the stand of defendants/respondents in the said suits was similar as they have taken in the instant suit tiled against them, that it was held in the said judgments and decrees that defendants/respondents have not acquired any proprietary rights in the said property, that on the similar analogy the Trial Court was hound to hold that land -purchased by plaintiffs/petitioners had not been acquired by defendants /respondents........ As asserted by them and as such they had purchased the land from rightful owners vide sale deed dated 13.4.1993, that the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and as such the impugned:d judgments and decrees suffer from misreading and non reading of evidence. He thus submitted that civil revision he admitted for regular hearing.
8. A narration of the facts reveal that plaintiffs/petitioners claim themselves to he owners of the suit property vide sale deed dated 13.4.1993. Their stand is that they have purchased the suit land from Muhammad Innayat son of Ahmad Din and Abdul Rashid son of Piran Ditta. On the other had, stand of defendants/respondents is that suit land was an evacuee property and was transferred to defendant/respondent No. 1 by defendant/respondent No. 2 vide letter referred above on the basis of which mutation was also sanctioned on 21.6.1979. The onus of proving ownership in respect of suit land was on the plaintiff/petitioner as is evident from issue No. 5. To discharge this onus plaintiffs/petitioners have examined Haji Muhammad Sharif as PW.1. He was deposed that suit land was purchased by the plaintiffs/petitioners and a sale deed had been executed in their favour about 11/2 year ago. In his cross examination, he admits that suit land had been allotted to defendant/respondent No. 1 by the Settlement Commissioner. He further admits that he did not know as to from whom Rashid and Inayat had purchased the land. He further admits that when land was purchased from Rashid and Inayat, they (Plaintiffs/petitioners) were not in possession of the same. The plaintiffs/petitioners have also relied upon the judgments and decrees dated 19.3.1989 and 31.7.1990 wherein the suit property has been held to have not been acquired by defendant/respondent No. 1 and it had rightly been held to have been purchased by Muhammad Hanif and others who were the plaintiffs in the said suits. There is no doubt that according to judgments and decrees dated 19.3.1989 Ex.P-2 and dated 31.7.1990 Ex.P-4, it has been held that the property purchased by Muhammad Hanif and others had not been transferred to defendant/respondent No. 1. However, the said judgments being judgment in persona cannot relied upon by the plaintiffs/petitioners. To prove their own stand. In the instant matter onus was on the plaintiffs/petitioners to prove their ownership. They claimed to have purchased the property from Rashid and Inayat but there is no document on record to show and prove the 'entitlement of Rashid and Inayat. In the absence of any such document, it cannot be held with any certainty that suit land ever existed in the name of Rashid and Inayat who are the vendors of the present plaintiffs/petitioners. The stand of defendant/respondent No. I is that land was allotted to him by defendant/respondent No. 2 which fact stands admitted even by PW-1 in his cross examination. In the wake of admission of PW-1 regarding the allotment of suit land by Settlement Commissioner/defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant/respondent No. 1 coupled with absence of any documentary evidence regarding title of so called vendors Rashid and Inayat, the Trial Court has rightly answered issue No. 5 against the plaintiffs/petitioners which findings have been up held by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala vide judgment and decree dated 1.7.1999.
9. Be that as it may, Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to cases, involving illegal assumption, non exercise or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. It cannot he invoked against conclusions of law or fact, which do not, in any way, effect the jurisdiction of this Court; no matter, however, erroneous, wrong or perverse, the decision might he either.On a question of tact or law, unless the decision involves a matter of jurisdiction. As erroneous conclusion of law or fact is liable to he corrected in appeal, but revision 'will not be competent on such a ground, unless in arriving at such conclusion, an error of law is manifestly shown to have been committed,
10. Neither any such aspect has been put forth or highlighted, nor is seemingly available, so as, to attract or entail provisions of Section 115 Civil Procedure Code, which this, can, neither. Come into play nor press into service. Judgments and decrees, now sought to he impeached and set at naught are accordingly, unexceptionable as the same neither appear to suffer from infirmity or any irregularity, what to speak of material irregularity, nor perversity or arbitrariness.
11. Hence viewed from the angle, revision petition merits dismissal and is, hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.