' The facts forming the background of the present appeal, are fully set out in the judgment of the learned Trial Court and need not, therefore, to be reproduced here. The dispute between the parties relates to a parcel of land measuring 3 Marlas. The admitted facts are that the appellant purchased 1 Kanal, 10 Marlas of land. Which purchase was recorded in Mutation No, 2560, dated 21- 4-1963 in favour of the appellant. The respondent purchased one separate parcel of land measuring 1 Kanal which was to the south of the land purchased by the appellant. The respondent acquired another parcel of land measuring 5 Marlas through exchange. The location of this parcel of land in relation to the land purchased by the appellant, has not been mentioned in the exchange deed. However, the respondent claims that the said land was to the north of the land purchased by the appellant.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to this second parcel of land. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit for possession filed by the appellant mainly on the ground that the disputed parcel of land measured 3 Marlas while the land claimed by the respondent as a result of the exchange, measured 5 Marlas. The learned Trial Court also visited the site of the disputed land and came to the conclusion that the disputed land constituted part of the land acquired by the appellant. The appellant's suit for possession was, therefore, decreed.
3. Feeling aggrieved the respondent preferred an appeal. The learned Lower Appellate Court deputed the Tehsildar, Kehrore, as Local Commission to examine the site and prepare the site plan.
The Local Commission did prepare such a site plan which was exhibited on the record as Exh.C.W.1/3. The Local Commission came to the conclusion that the appellant was in possession of 1 Kanal and 11 Marlas of land which was 1 Marla more than the land purchased by the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent also took me through the evidence of Dr. Fazal Ellahi appellant who appeared as P.W.6 in support of his own case. The appellant has clearly testified that he had constructed a boundary wall around the land measuring 1 Kanal' 10 Marlas purchased by him. He further deposed that the said boundary wall contained in existence even at the time of his testimony.
5. The aforesaid evidence led by the appellant as well as the site plan, prepared by the Local Commission, clearly shows that the appellant is in possession of the land purchased by him which, according to the appellant's own evidence, is located within the boundary wall constructed by him.
The mere fact that the disputed parcel of land measures 3 Marlas instead of 5 Marlas acquired by the respondent through exchange, is not material in the light of the strong evidence discussed above which supports the respondent's case.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree, dated 27-6-1967 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh. The appeal, as a consequence, is dismissed.