SHAIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J.--- Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiffs/petitioners claim themselves to be in adverse possession of land measuring 7 kanals described fully in the head note of the plaint. They further allege that prior to them their. Father had been coming in possession of the same in the same capacity to the knowledge of the defendants/respondents.
The plaintiffs/petitioners requested the defendants/respondents to accept their right of ownership on account of adverse possession but they refused to accede .To their request. Hence, they were constrained to file a suit for declaration to the effect that they have become owner of suit land on account of adverse possession and as consequential relief prayed that the defendants/respondents be restrained from interfering in their possession. The defendants/respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed a consent written statement and stated that they had no objection to passing of decree in favour of plaintiffs/petitioners. However, defendants/respondents Nos. 5 to 8 contested this suit and denied the stand of the plaintiffs/petitioners regarding their adverse possession over the suit land. Hence, they prayed that the suit be dismissed.
2. The learned Trial Court out of divergent pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiffs have become owners by adverse possession? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiffs deficient in Court-fee? OPD
(3) Relief.
3. In support of their stand, the plaintiffs brought on record copies of revenue record Ex.P-1 to P-11 through their learned counsel on 17.11.1975. Later on one of the plaintiffs/petitioners Qadir Bakhsh recorded his statement as PW-1. On 11.5.1977, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners closed evidence of the plaintiffs/petitioners. In rebuttal defendants/respondents examined Ghulam Haider DW-1, Faiz Bakhsh DW-2. Their learned counsel produced documents Ex.D-1 to D-7 and then closed their evidence. After going through the evidence produced by the parties, Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 22.10.1977. The plaintiffs/petitioners felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree and filed an appeal which also met the same fate as is evident from the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1978 passed by learned District Judge, Rahimyar Khan. The plaintiffs/petitioners have felt aggrieved of the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and filed the instant civil revision.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners that petitioners have claimed themselves to be owners of the suit land on account of adverse possession, that to prove their stand they have brought on record copies'"of record of rights 1962-63 to 1970-71 Ex.P-1 to 3 as well as copies of Khasra girdawari Exs.P-4 to P-11, that as per said documents they have been shown to be in possession over the suit land without payment of Lagan and this fact further supports their plea of adverse possession, that they have been non-suited on the ground that they have failed to establish that their possession is hostile, open and to the knowledge of the defendants/respondents, that this stand of the Trial Court is factually incorrect as it has been categorically stated by Qadir Bakhsh PW-1 that they are in possession of the suit land by virtue of their adverse possession, that plaintiffs/p.Etitioners have not paid any rent or produce of the land in question to the defendants/respondent nor the defendants/respondents ever initiated any proceedings for the recovery of rent or produce. As such, this fact further proves their adverse possession over the land, that even the defendants/respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have filed their consent statement admitting their claim, that even Jamabandi for the year 1974-75 Ex.D-2 shows the plaintiffs/petitioners to be , in possession without payment of Lagan. He, thus submitted that both the Courts below have not returned the findings in accordance with law, as such revision petition be accepted and judgment of the Courts below be set aside and suit of plaintiffs/petitioners be decreed.
6. Conversely the impugned judgments and decrees have been supported by the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents Nos. 5 to 8. While referring to the admission of defendants/respondents Nos. 1 to 4, he submitted that such admission being wrong on point of fact or made in ignorance of legal right have no binding effect and place reliance upon Barkhurdar Vs. Muhammad Razzaq (PLD 1989 SC 749), that plea of adverse possession and title to the property are contradictory and self-destructive of each other and placed reliance upon Abdul Majeed and 6 others Vs. Muhammad Subhan and 2 others (2000 SCJ 135), that in the light of authority referred above, the plea of the plaintiffs/petitioners of acquiring prohibitory rights on account of adverse possessions is not sustainable. He thus, prayed that both the Courts below have returned the findings in accordance with law, as such, civil revision is devoid of any force and merits dismissal.
7. Now let us see if the plaintiffs/petitioners have succeeded in proving their stand. Their stand mainly rests upon the documentary evidence which has been brought on record in the form of copies of Jamabandis and of. Khasra Girdawaris Ex.P.1 to 11, coupled with the statement of PW.1.
There is no doubt that as per documents Ex.P.1 to 11 they have been shown to be in possession without paying any Lagan. However, they have been shown to be tenants-at-will of the owners as is evident from entries appearing in column No. 4 of Ex.P.1 to 3. Thus the mere fact that they have been shown to be occupying the said land without payment of Lagan will not confer upon them rights of ownership on account of adverse possession. Besides the entries in the revenue record, it has to be proved by the person claiming such right that.They have been in possession of the suit land and their possession was open, hostile and to the exclusion of rightful owners. This onus has not been discharged by the plaintiffs/petitioners, as is evident from the statement of Pir Bux PW.1. A perusal of his statement reveals that fie has not deposed that they are in possession of suit land on account of adverse possession. He has simply stated that they are in possession for the last 50 years. Even if it is assumed that plaintiffs/petitioners are in possession for 50 years, does it mean that such possession ripens into adverse possession. The answer is in negative. In order to claim adverse possession, one has to prove that he has been occupying the property/land openly, continuously and to the exclusion of the rights of other party. Thus plaintiffs/petitioners have failed to prove that they have become owners on account of adverse possession.
8. The plaintiffs/petitioners have also tried to get benefit from the admission of defendants/respondents Nos. 1 to 4 who have admitted their claim. There is no, doubt that such admission has been made by them. But the question is, if their admission ousts the defendants- respondents Nos. 5 to 8 from asserting their rights. The reply is again in the negative. On the other hand, such admissions have no legal effect as said admissions can't take away the rights of co- sharers in the suit property, and defendants/respondents Nos. 5 to 8 being co-sharers shall continue their status over the suit property and mere possession however long it may be can't be construed as adverse possession against a co-sharer, as held in Naeem-ud-Din 'Sheikh Vs. Mau/vi Sher Ali (PLD 1967 Dacca 811). Since the possession of one co-sharer is possession of other co- sharers, so the admission of defendants/respondents Nos. 1 to 4 would not come to the rescue of the plaintiffs/petitioners and they will not be able to prove their adverse possession of the suit land even against defendants/respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
9. The upshot of above discussion is that plaintiffs/petitioners have failed to prove their adverse possession over the suit land. The findings recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any misreading and' non-reading of evidence. Consequently, civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed.