This revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 9-2-1992, passed by learned Civil Judge. Sadiqabad where he decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession titled as Jamal Din v. Ahmad Din and against' the judgment and decree, dated 4-10-1995, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan dismissing the defendant's/petitioner's appeal titled as Bashir Ahmad and others v. Jamal Din.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the instant revision are as under:-- A plot measuring 5 Marlas fully detailed in the heading of the plaint 'is a bone of contention between the parties. As per the assertion of the plaintiff he purchased the disputed plot situate in Chak No.167/P Tehsil Sadiqabad. From one Khan Muhammad vide - registered sale-deed, dated 6- 2-1980 and raised construction thereon. Subsequently he gave a portion of the said house to Ahmad Din (defendant No.1) as licencee who had agreed to vacate the same as and when required by the plaintiff. The portion of the plot transferred to Ahmad Din, defendant was hardly more than 1 Marla and it remained under his use for several years. During his occupation Ahmad Din, defendant filed a declaratory suit to the effect that he was the owner of the said portion. The suit was contested by Jamal Din. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective, claims and the learned Trial Judge was pleased to dismiss the suit rejecting his claim of ownership. Ahmad Din went in appeal and that too was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan vide his judgment, dated 12-10-1985. The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan was not assailed before the High Court hence it attained finality. Thereafter, Jamal Din filed a. Suit for possession against Bashir Ahmad and others, the legal heirs -f said Ahmad Din who had died meanwhile. Bashir Ahmad and others contested the suit and claimed ownership of the disputed portion of the suit plot. Learned Trial Judge was pleased to fame the following issues:
(1) Whether the suit is mala fide and cannot proceed in view of preliminary objection No. l of the written statement?
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit against the defendants?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property, hence entitled to its possession?
(4) Relief.
3. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their claims. Learned Trial Judge after careful analysis of the same came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was the actual owner of the suit plot including the portion which was under the possession of the defendants as licencee. His title stood fully established through oral and documentary evidence including the registered sale-deed. The oral evidence led by the defendants/ respondents (Bashir Ahmad and others) was hardly sufficient to rebut the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff: The evidence of D.W.2 who is a Clerk in Excise and Taxation Department could not be treated as a conclusive proof of ownership. The evidence of D.W.3 was of interested nature. He, therefore, believed the plaintiff evidence in toto and rejected the evidence produced by the defendants (Bashir Ahmad and others) and consequently, decreed the plaintiffs' suit vide judgment, dated 9- 2-1992.
4. Feeling aggrieved Bashir Ahmad and others (defendants) went in appeal. The same was heard and decided by learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan who vide his judgment, dated 4- 10-1995 dismissed the same upholding the judgment of the learned Trial Judge.
5. Bashir Ahmad, his brother Nazir Ahmad and sisters, (Bashiran and Naziran) being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgments have assailed them by filing the instant revision petition and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
6. Having given may careful consideration to the arguments propounded by the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the judgments of the Courts below represent the true appraisal of the case and call for no interference. The ownership and title of Jamal Din, respondent/plaintiff stands fully established through registered sale-deed, dated 6-2-1980 and mutation No.725 was attested on 24-5-1981 in his favour on the basis thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioners has frankly conceded on this point. He has, however, vehemently, contended that counter-claim of title of Ahmad Din, predecessor-in-interest of Bashir Ahmad and others over the disputed portion of the suit plot also stands established through sale--deed, dated 6-12-1980 (Exh.P.6). It is significant to note that the sale-deed relied upon by Jamal Din, respondent is prior in point of time while the sale-deed allegedly executed in favour of Ahmed Din, predecessor-in-interest of Bashir and others (petitioners) was executed about 10 months later, which carries no weight or value in the eye of law because of piece of land cannot be sold twice by the same vendor. It is also significant to note that Bashir Ahmad and others (petitioners) filed a suit for declaration in respect of the disputed portion of the suit plot against Jamal Din, the present respondent acid claimed its ownership on the basis of aforesaid sale-deed but his suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and his appeal also did not find favour with the Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan. It is also worth mentioning that said Ahmad Din did not assail the judgment of the learned Additional/District Judge before this Court and that judgment and decree have attained finality. The title/ownership of Jamal Din, respondent over the suit plot including its disputed portion stands fully proved through the oral discrepant and contradictory.
7. Putting the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties in juxtaposition, I am convinced that the evidence produced by Jamal Din, respondent is overwhelming in character and reliability. The judgment of the Trial Court as well as learned Additional District Judge represent the true appraisal of the case and call for no interference.