MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J. -- The petitioner brought a suit for possession of seven marlas of land, situate in village Gandowali, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot. According to him the respondent had encroached upon the same. The learned Civil Judge framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties decreed the suit on 24.7.1983. The respondent filed an appeal which was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, on 8.11.1984.
2. The learned Addl. District Judge, while reversing the decree of the learned Trial Court, has held that the document Ex.P-1, which is a copy of the Roznamcha Waqiati, was inadmissible in evidence.
He has found that the respondent was not present during the course of demarcation proceedings recorded in the said document. He has further observed that there is no evidence that the suit land belonged to the petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Addl. District Judge vis-a-vis issue No. 2 is correct, but for somewhat different reasoning.
Roznamcha Waqiati is a public document and its certified copy is admissible per se. However, the report recorded therein cannot be relied upon for the reason that the demarcation was not conducted by any Revenue Officer as defined in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. I also agree with the learned Addl. District Judge that a report is an opinion and has to be proved by the person who makes the same. The learned Addl. District Judge, however, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him when he proceeded to dismiss the suit after excluding the report Ex.P-1 from evidence. This Court has been consistently of the view that in boundary/Hadshikni disputes the Courts should decide the matters by exercising powers under Order 26, Rule 9, CPC read with Section 75 thereof. The learned Addl. District Judge ought to have appointed a Local Commissioner, preferable a Revenue Officer, to conduct demarcation in accordance with the Land Revenue Rules and the Rules and Orders of this Court.
4. The observation of the learned Addl. District Judge that there is no proof on record that the suit land was owned by the petitioner or that the respondent has become owner by adverse possession is also not supported by the evidence on record. On the other hand, a reading of the pleadings on record would show that the respondent has not denied the ownership of the petitioner over the suit land specifically. In fact, his plea that he has become owner by adverse possession constitutes an admission that the plaintiff is or has been vested with title in the suit land. According to law of pleadings contained in Order 8, CPC, a denial has to be specific, and where contents of a plaint are not specifically denied, the same are presumed to have been admitted. The tenor of the issues framed by the learned Trial Court goes to show that the learned Trial Court rightly drew the said inference. So far as the plea of adverse possession is concerned, suffice it to say that the land was admittedly an evacuee property and came to vest in the Central Government and was transferred to the petitioner vide mutation Ex.P-2 attested on 26.1.1980. This mutation was attested with reference to an order of the Settlement Authorities dated 13.8.1978.
There is no question of adverse possession against evacuee property. This land left the compensation pool in the year 1978 and the suit was filed on 17.3.1980. The suit was well within time.
5. For all that has been stated above, this Civil Revision is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 8.11.1984 of the learned Addl. District Judge are set aside. The result would be that appeal of the respondent shall be deemed to be pending. The learned District Judge, Narowal shall requisition the file of the appeal as also the record of the learned Trial Court and proceed with the matter after notice to the parties. He shall appoint a local Revenue Officer as Local Commissioner with direction to effect demarcation after notice to the parties and to file his report. The appeal then will be decided in the light of the report in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.