This order will dispose of Civil Revision No.26 of 1995 and Civil Revision No. 1568 of 1999 as both of them arise from the same judgment.
2. These petitions are directed against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Okara, dated 8-12-1994 reversing the judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge, dated 2- 6-1992.
3. Briefly the facts of the case are that Maqbool Ahmad etc. Respondents filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant for possession in respect of property measuring 14-1/2 Marlas bearing Khewat No.8 Khatuni No-8 Plot No.28 according to the register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1986-87 situated in Chak No.15/1-AL Tehsil and District Okara contending that the suit property was owned and possessed by their father who had raised construction over there after incoming expenses from his own pocket. Nine years prior to the filing of the suit respondents got the suit plot measuring fourteen and half Marla for their residence temporarily. Six Katcha rooms were constructed over there for tethering cattle remaining plot measuring 4 Marlas, 6 Sarsahis towards the east remained in possession of the respondents. Respondents asked the defendant to vacate the suit property but he did not accede to their request; therefore, they were constrained to file the suit. Petitioner contested the suit vehemently through written statement asserting that respondents Nos.2 to 9 had sold the suit property to him for Rs.20,000, therefore, he had become owner in possession thereof. He further asserted that on account of being in possession for considerable long period he has become owner by adverse possession. Respondents promised to get the mutation of sale sanctioned in his favour but subsequently refused. Respondents filed a Suit bearing No. 1117 of 1991 against Ismail petitioner on 5-9-1991. Petitioner also instituted Suit No.1198 on 1-10-1991 against the respondents seeking a decree of declaration to the effect that he had become owner of the suit property through sale and through adverse possession and respondents are bound to get the mutation of sale sanctioned in his favour. The said suit was contested by the respondents through their written statement asserting that it was barred by time and the plaintiff/petitioner/s averments were false. Learned Civil Judge vide order, dated 2-12-1991 consolidated both the Suits Nos.1198 of 1991 and Suit No. 11'17 of 1991 and framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs Maqbool etc. Are entitled to a decree of possession of the suit land against the defendant? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD .
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD
(4) Whether the defendant Muhammad Ismail is entitled to a decree of declaration in Suit No. 1198 of 1991 to the effect that he has become the owner of suit property after paying Rs.20,000 to the plaintiffs? OPD
(5) Whether the Suit No. 1198 of 1991 is time-barred? OPD
(6) Whether the Suit No. 1198 of 1991 is not maintainable in its present form, if so, what is its effect?
OPP
(7) Relief.
Learned Civil Judge after recording evidence of the parties and hearing the arguments of their respective counsel dismissed the suit of respondents Maqbool Ahmad etc. And decreed the suit of Muhammad Ismail petitioner. Maqbool Ahmad and other respondents filed a joint appeal before the learned Additional District Judge which was accepted through impugned judgment and consequently dismissed the suit of the petitioner and decreed the suit filed by the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit property was purchased by the petitioner for Rs.20,000 from respondents Nos.2 to 9. The attestation of mutation was avoided by them on one pretext or the other and ultimately he was constrained to file suit for declaration. The evidence produced by the petitioner has not been construed in true perspective by the learned Additional District Judge while accepting the appeal of the respondents. Petitioner has raised construction over the suit property after its purchase, therefore, he is entitled to the decree for declaration as prayed by him in this suit.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has no right whatsoever in the suit property. He was only permitted to raise Katcha rooms temporarily for tethering his cattle and instead of delivering possession to the respondents peacefully forced them to file the suit for possession. After the institution of Suit No. 1117 of 1991 as counter-blast he also filed Suit No. 1198 of 1991. No documentary evidence whatsoever showing any right in the property has been placed on record to justify his claim.
6. Heard. Record perused. Petitioner has not placed on record any receipt or agreement to sell indicating sale of property in his favour for Rs.20,000 by the vendors. The Revenue Record produced by the petitioner himself, Jamabandi for the year 1985-86 indicates ownership of the respondents.
According to the claim of the petitioner the price of the suit property was Rs.20,000. Its valid title could not pass to him unless a registered sale-deed was executed. The petitioner's case consists of evidence of D.W.1 petitioner himself, Haji Muhammad Iqbal D.W.2, Muhammad Anwar D.W.3 in addition to the electricity bill-for the year 1981 Exh.D.l, 1985 Exh.D.2, September, 1991 Exh.D.3, the copy of the F.I.R.. Exh.D.4 whereas the evidence of respondents consists of Muhammad Akbar P. W.1, Muhammad Rafique P.W.2 and Maqbool Ahmad P.W.3. The perusal of the evidence shows that when Maqbool Ahmad was sitting in his Baithak alongwith Akbar P.W.1 and Muhammad Rafique P.W.2 Ismail petitioner came and requested him for providing residence and conceding his request Maqbool Ahmad gave fourteen and half Marlas to him in which six Katcha rooms were constructed.
He was asked time and again to vacate the Khata after some time but their request was turned down. Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Akbar have supported the version of Maqbool Ahmad P.W.3. The Khata was given to the petitioner temporarily. The factum of sale was vehemently denied by Maqbool Ahmad and his other witnesses Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Rafique.
Petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to establish that the suit property was sold to him by the respondents Exh.P.4 copy of the F.I.R. Further strengthen the case of the respondents.
They wanted to take back the possession of the Suit lhata whereupon the case was got registered by the petitioner. Respondents have never accepted ownership of petitioner at any stage. The installation of electricity connection does not confer any right on the petitioner. Electricity is not provided to the owners only but any occupant can get the connection after fulfilling the formalities required by WAPDA. Oral evidence of the petitioner cannot be given preference over documentary evidence produced by himself, copy of register of rights for the year 1986-87 which clearly shows that the respondents are the owners of the suit property. Except aforesaid Jamabandi no other document pertaining to the rights of the parties on the suit property was produced to establish ownership of the petitioner.
7. Learned Additional District Judge properly appreciated the evidence on record in concluding that the petitioner failed to establish sale of suit property, in his favour by the respondents.
Petitioner filed Suit No. 1198 of 1991 after institution of the Suit by the respondents bearing No. 1117 of 1991 as a counter-blast to create his defence. The impugned judgment is supported by cogent evidence on record which calls for no interference. Resultantly the revision petition has no merit and is dismissed.
8. The Second. Civil Revision No. 1568 of 1999 was filed in this Court on 11-10-1999 against the impugned judgment and decree, dated 8-12-1994 which is hopelessly barred by time. In the application (C.M. No.1/C of 1999) seeking condonation of delay no sufficient ground has been shown. This petition is barred by more than four years, therefore, it is dismissed as barred by time as well as for the reasons given in connected petition. Resultantly both the petitions fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.