1. 1and 2. The petitioner and the respondent are real brothers. Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction stating therein that he had purchased the agricultural land being survey numbers 102 and 104 admeasuring about (16-9) acres situated in Deh Mari Jehanullah Shah, TapoPatni, TalukaRohri, District Sukkur from one Syed GadaHussain Shah through sale agreement dated 21-12-1966. The sale-deed was registered on 23-12-1966, wherein the respondent, who was brother of the petitioner/plaintiff was shown to be co-sharer of the abovementioned land to the extent of 0-25 paisa as beriami. The consideration for the land was paid by the petitioner and the share of 0-25 paisa was mentioned in the sale-deed out of brotherly love and affection.
2. Accordingly the name of respondent was shown as owner in record of rights, to the extent of 0-25 paisa. The possession of the land remained with the petitioner to the extent of 0-75 paisa whereas the remaining 0-25 paisa share was in the possession of respondent Abdul Ghani. It is stated in the plaint that in the year 1978 the respondent/defendant surrendered his right in the suit land to the extent of 0-25 paisa and in return thereof he received an Auto Rickshaw bearing SKA-113, which belonged to Abdul Razzaq the son of petitioner. The value of rickshaw at that time was Rs,45,000.
3. The respondent subsequently sold that rickshaw to one Mahboob Ali for a consideration of Rs,18,000 on 30-7-1978. The petitioner prayed for declaring him as owner of the suit land to the extent of 100 paisa as the respondent had sold his 25 paisa share and received rickshaw from the petitioner as a consideration of his share. The respondent filed his written statement wherein he denied the allegations and stated that he was owner of the land to the extent of 0-25 paisa share. He denied that the land was purchased in his name as Benami. The respondent has further denied that he received rickshaw as consideration of transfer of land to the extent of his share. The suit proceeded in the trial Court, which was ultimately dismissed on 11-2-1993. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, filed an appeal before the District Judge, Sukkur being Civil Appeal 9 of 1993, but the same was also dismissed on 14-11-1993.
4. The said judgments and decrees have been challenged by way of this civil revision. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire amount for consideration of the land was paid by the petitioner out of his earning and the respondent has never paid a single penny. The name of respondent was entered in record of rights by the petitioner out of his brotherly love and affection and the respondent was the Benami owner of the property. It is submitted that in the year 1978 the respondent sold his share 0-25 paisas share to the petitioner and in return, he received a rickshaw from him, which was subsequently sold by him to one Maqbool Ahmed for a consideration of Rs,18.000. The respondent has denied the receiving of rickshaw from the petitioner but the denial is evasive and according io the learned counsel under Order 8, Rule 4, C.P.C. The suit is to be decreed on the basis of these evasive replies given by the respondent in written statement.
5. It is argued that the suit should have been decreed on the basis of these evasive replies. It is an illegality and the civil revision be allowed on these basis. Mr. Nazeer Ahmed Awan learned counsel for the respondent has contended that there are concurrent findings by two Courts below on factual aspect of the case. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments. The petitioner has failed to adduce evidence to prove the factum of respondent being owner of the land to the extent of 0-25 paisa, as benami. So far the possession of disputed land is concerned suffice to say, that it is a joint property and the possession of one co-sharer is the possession of all the joint owners.
6. The issues as framed by the trial Court are all on factual aspect of the case. The evidence was led by the parties, which has been elaborately evaluated and discussed by the two so below. The petitioner had purchased landed property out of his sole income and included 0-25 paisa share in the property of respondent due to love and affection, is not proved by him. The petitioner has also failed to prove that he delivered the rickshaw to respondent as a consideration of purchase of the share of land from him. Moreover, the two pleas agitated by the petitioner are controversial to each other as on one hand he says that respondent was the only Benami owner of the land whereas on the other hand he states that the property belonging to respondent, was sold by him to the petitioner and received rickshaw in consideration thereof. The perusal of two judgments of Courts below, do not suffer from illegalities or infirmities. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading or missappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the civil revision merits no consideration and is dismissed in limine alongwith listed application with no order as to costs.