On 21-5-1979, respondents' suit for possession with regard to the suit-land was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 15-1-1982. The appeal filed by the respondents had been accepted by the learned Appellate Court on 17-8-1985 and the suit has been decreed in their favour.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are, that dispute between the parties relates to a plot measuring 5 Marlas, which has been described in the plaint. Respondents claim to have purchased the house from one Maqbool Ahmed through four registered sale deeds, dated 12-9-1963 and it is their case that the etitioners/defendants some time before the filing of the suit, had allegedly encroached upon the suit plot. This suit was contested by the petitioners, who claimed that they have purchased the suit plot from the heirs of one Barkat Ali, in the year 1973, who was a co-sharer alongwith Maqbool Ahmed in the suit land. Thus they were in possession in their own rights. Issues were framed, parties were put to trial and the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that respondents have not been able to prove their ownership of the suit land, four sale-deeds in their favour i,e, Exh. P-1 to Exh. P-4, are unregistered documents, it is not established, if they have taken over the possession of the suit-land on acquiring the title thereto by virtue of these deeds. It is also the view of the trial Court that the petitioners have purchased one Kanal and three Marlas of land from the heirs of Barkat Ali. Maqbool Ahmed, respondent No,9, from whom, the other respondents claim to have purchased the property, filed a suit for pre-emption, challenging this sale. In such suit, a compromise was , effected and Maqbool Ahmed has conceded that he was not the owner of the disputed Khasra No: 315, rather it was owned by the petitioners. It is on the basis of above, the respondents were not found owners and entitled to the possession, besides the suit was also held to be barred by time, as having been filed after more than 12 years from 1963. On appeal filed by respondents Nos, 1 to 8, learned Appellate Court, has reversed the finding and has come to the conclusion that petitioners claims to have purchased the suit-land from Barkat Ali, while Barkat Ali, had earlier filed a suit for possession againstMaqbool Ahmed, respondent No,9, from whom, other respondents had purchased the suit-land. This suit of Barkat Ali, was dismissed as he was not found entitled to the possession thereof. This judgment has been placed on the record as Exh. P-8.
Moreover, Maqbool Ahmed, who was arrayed as defendant in the present suit filed by respondents, had conceded about the sale in their favour. Though Maqbool Ahmed, in the other suit of pre- emption filed by him, against the petitioners, also had made statement that he had no connection with Khasra No, 315, however, by taking into account the effect the earlier judgment Exh. P.8. passed against Barkat Ali, in the year 1953, Exh. P-8, the appeal of the respondents Nos, 1 to 8 was accepted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondents Nos,1 to 8 had no concern with the suit property, the sale-deeds Exh. P-1 to Exh. P-4 are result of fraud, etc. No effect to these sales have been given in the Revenue Record. In the suit for pre-emption, filed by Maqbool Ahmed, respondent No,9, against the petitioners, he had acknowledged of having no connection with the disputed property i,e, Khasra No: 315.
4. I am afraid that all these contentions in the light of judgment, dated 24-12-1953, passed in a suit filed by Barkat Ali against Maqbool Ahmed, which was dismissed and it was found that Barkat Ali, is not co-sharer in the "Shamlat deh" and "Atraf", which is presently the disputed plot, have no force.
As this decree has been passed against Barkat Ali, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner, therefore, they cannot claim ownership on the basis of sale-deed in their favour affected in the year 1973. As regard the admission made by Maqbool Ahmed, in the suit for pre-emption is concerned, I am not convinced if he after the sale of the suit property in favour of respondents Nos, 1 to 8 in the year 1963, could validly acknowledge the petitioner as the owners of the disputed plot.
Moreover, in the present case, Maqbool Ahmed, in the written statement has admitted the other respondents/ plaintiffs as being owners of the suit property.
5. From the totality of the evidence placed on the record, it is clearly proved that respondents/plaintiffs were the owners of the property and they were entitled to seek the possession.
6. For the question, whether the suit brought by respondents/plaintiffs, in the year 1979, on the basis of registered sale-deed affected in the year 1963, was barred by limitation, suffice it to say that as per case of the respondents, which has been proved on the record, they had taken the possession of the suit-land, but was subsequently dispossessed by the petitioners, the suit was brought within 12 years of their dispossession, therefore, it was well within the time.
No other legal or factual infirmity has been pointed out in the judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court, calling for interference in the revisional jurisdiction. This petition thus has no merits and is hereby dismissed.