This Civil Revision Petition under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge-I, Quetta whereby the appeals being Nos. 10 of 1998, 11 of 1998 and 12 of 1998 were dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 15-12-1994 against the respondent being Suit No,188 of 1994 with the averment that the father of the petitioners purchased a piece of land measuring 2500 sq.Ft in the year of 1935 from the father of respondent in consideration of Rs,500 and also executed an agreement/sale-deed at that time. It was stated that the agreement/sale-deed is in possession of respondent. It is stated that the amount was paid at that time and the possession of the same has been handed over to the father of petitioners. Katcha rooms and boundary wall were constructed over the disputed land by the father of petitioners. It is stated that the father of the petitioners made a request for mutation of the disputed land to the father of respondent at that time who promised of mutation but unluckily he was expired and the mutation of the land in question was not transferred in the name of petitioners' father. It is stated that thereafter, the father of the respondent was also expired and no mutation was effected between the parties. It is stated that the petitioners approached the respondent for mutation of the disputed land who sought some time for mutation. It is stated that the petitioners then reconstructed four rooms over the disputed land, two rooms are Pakka constructed. It is stated that installation of water nul and electricity have also been made in the house but no objection was raised by the respondent regarding installation of water nul, electricity and reconstruction of rooms. It is stated that the petitioners approached the respondent and also sent the notables of the area for mutation of the disputed land in revenue record on their names. It is stated that when the petitioners installed the pipeline for gas connection, the respondent started interference in the work of gas pipeline.
3. The suit was resisted by the respondent by filing written statement. It was the case of respondent that the plot in question was neither sold out nor agreed to be sold by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent neither received any consideration for the same.
4. The claim of the respondent/plaintiff in Suit No,129 of 1995 was that he is owner of land bearing Nos.1978/1036/363 measuring 12 Pols Khewat No,1, Khatooni No,1 Mahal Karim Sahibzada, Mauza Sirki Tappa Saddar, Tehsil and District, Quetta to the extent of his share by inheritance. The father of the respondent/plaintiff had given 1400/1500 sq. Ft. To the father of petitioner/defendants for construction of Katcha house without receiving any consideration. It is stated that after death of the fathers of the parties a suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. It is stated that the petitioners have no proprietary right over the property and the father of the respondent has neither entered into any agreement of sale with the father of petitioners nor received any consideration for the same. The suit was resisted by filing written statement.
5. The trial Court framed as many as eight issues in Suit No,188 of 1994. In support of their case the petitioners produced P.W.1 Allah Rakha, P.W.2 Amanullah, P.W.3 Ghulam Muhammad, P.W. 4 Rafiqullah, P.W.5 Abdul Qadir, P.W. 6 Ghulam Sabir, P.W.7 Khair Jan, P.W.8 Ahmed Jan and the petitioner Muhammad Qasim also got recorded his statement as attorney. Two witnesses were examined from the side of respondent and also got recorded his own statement.
6. Out of the pleadings of the parties in Suit No,129 of 1995 the learned trial Court framed as many as four issues. Four witnesses were produced by the petitioner/plaintiff and also got recorded his own statement. In rebuttal the evidence produced in Suit No,188 of 1994 was transferred in the said suit with the consent of parties. After assessment of the evidence the learned trial Court dismissed the suit bearing No,188 of 1994 and the suit filed by the respondent bearing No,129 of 1995 was decreed by common judgment dated 30-4-1997. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners preferred appeals being Civil Appeal No,10 of 1998 and Civil Appeal No,11 of 1998 while cross appeal being Civil Appeal No,12 of 1998 was filed by the respondent.
7. The learned Additional District Judge-I, Quetta after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and examining the record came to the conclusion that the petitioners had not produced any documentary or oral evidence to prove their title on the disputed property. It was also concluded that the petitioners only proved possession and mere adverse possession does not offer any title, right to the petitioners. Regarding Suit No,129 of 1995, the learned Appellate Court has concluded that the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the respondent. The relevant portion of the conclusion drawn by the Appellate Court is reproduced below for the sake of facility:-- "The upshot abovesaid discussion and in view of the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the parties I am of the opinion that the appellant/plaintiffs in Suit No,188 of 1994 has not established his claim beyond reasonable shadow of doubt while the respondent/plaintiff in Suit No,129 of 1995 produced sufficient evidence and proved the claim in the property in dispute. The Cross Appeal. No,12 of 1998 is concern, the learned trial Court rightly resolved the Issue Nos.1 to 4 in the Suit No,188 of 1994. The learned trial Court had scrutinized the evidence at a greater depth and had no reason to differ from its finding. Besides no illegalities or material irregularities could be found in the impugned judgment dated 304-1997." The same is the subject-matter of present revision petition.
8. 1 have heard Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Muhammad Hashim Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent.
9. The Courts below have analysed the evidence on record in its true perspective but obviously no case on the basis of mere surmises or, conjectures can be made out. Moreover, this Court cannot substitute the conclusions which were concurrently and reasonably drawn by the learned Courts below by proper appreciation of evidence. If no error of law or defect in procedure had been committed in-coming to a finding of fact the High Court cannot substitute such a finding merely because a different finding could be given. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any irregularity or illegality warranting interference in this matter in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Courts below is not contrary to law.
The doctrine of adverse possession has been declared to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam.
Section 28 of the Limitation Act has since been omitted by Act II of 1995. Similarly, Article 144 has also been omitted by the same Act.
10. In view of above discussion the petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.