' This revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. (Act V of 1908) filed by Mst. Bibi Zohra and others petitioners, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13-5-1997 delivered by learned Additional District Judge, Mansehra, whereby Appeal No,43/13 of 1995 preferred by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 12-7-1995 passed by learned Civil Judge, Mansehra, in Suit No,184/1 of 1983 was maintained.
2. Facts of the case precisely narrated are, that respondents Nos.1 to 5 Nawab (predecessor-in- interest of real respondents Nos.6 to 9), Mana (predecessor-in-interest of real respondents Nos.10 to 12) alongwith Gulab (predecessor-in-interest of proforma respondents Nos.13 to 17) had instituted a suit on 5-6-1983 in the Court of Civil Judge, Mansehra, seeking a declaration to the effect that they were owners with possession of suit-land located in Khasra Nos.1503, 1506, 1501, 1505 and 1504 measuring 9 Kanals, 15 Marlas in the area of village Bajna, District Mansehra alongwith construction thereon, which was held by them by way of 'Seri' and that the entries of ownership in the Revenue Record in the name of petitioners were illegal, void, against facts and inconsequential against their rights. In the alternative, they claimed a declaration to the effect that if they were not found to be entitled to the said declaration, then they have become owners of suit- land together with construction thereupon by prescription on account of adverse possession extending over a period of more than 12 years. They also claimed permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering in their possession or ejecting them from the land in question and construction thereupon. They also claimed possession of the same in case they were dispossessed during pendency of the suit. Subsequently the plaintiffs-respondents Nos.1 to 5 namely Mana and Nawab (deceased) filed an amended plaint in which Gulab (predecessor-ininterest of proforma respondents) was impleaded as defendant and the same reliefs were claimed as in the original suit.
3. The defendants contested the suit and filed their written statement and repelled all the averments made in the plaint. The parties were put to trial on issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. Upon consideration of the evidence produced by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the perusal of Revenue Record/Settlement Record relating to suit-land would reveal that the plaintiffs had been enjoying the suit-land as 'Seri' since their forefathers without payment of any rent, produce and Chakota etc. To defendants and their forefathers and that the rights of ownership were transferred to the plaintiffs and their forefathers in recognition of their holding the suit-land as 'Seri'. Having held so, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 12-7-1995. An appeal was preferred against the aforesaid judgment and decree which was dismissed through judgment dated 13-5-1997, giving rise to the filing of instant revision petition.
4. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Yunas Khan Tanoli, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Muhammad Wajid Khan, Advocate, for the respondents. I have also gone through the entire record of the case with their able assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners bitterly criticized the impugned judgments of the Courts below and attempted to argue that learned trial Judge as well as learned Additional District Judge have drawn wrong inferences and misdirected themselves to hold that the plaintiffs had been enjoying the suit-land in the capacity of 'Seri Khor' since their forefathers without payment of any rent, produce or Chakota to defendants and their forefathers and that the findings returned against the petitioners are not supported by actual evidence on file. He maintained that nothing was produced in support of the claim of the respondents whereas sufficient evidence was brought on record in rebuttal which has been totally ignored by the Courts below without any justifiable reason. The learned counsel added that the plaintiffs are clearly entered in the column of cultivation in the Revenue Record as tenants-at-will and not as 'Seri Khor' but this important entry has escaped notice of the Courts below which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Concluding the arguments the learned counsel maintained that the suit-land has remained in possession of different tenants-at-will under the petitioners who were inducted into possession by the petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest from time to time and thus the claim of the plaintiffs that they were 'Seri Khor' was unfounded and unwarranted and plea of adverse possession was not available to them. In support of the contentions, reliance was placed on Hakeem Shah and 16 others v. Sawab Khan and 17 others (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 200), Khushi Muhammad v. Liaqat Ali (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 581), Saidullah Jan and 3 others v. Hawas Khan and 11 others (PLD 2002 Peshawar 92), Faiz Bakhsh and others v. Multan Municipal Corporation (1989 SCMR 1318) and Muhammad Atiq and others v. Tayubuddin and others (PLD 1998 Peshawar 47).
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, raised a preliminary objection regarding limitation and contended :hat the revision is barred by time and merits dismissal on this score alone. He placed reliance on Tahirali and others v. Chief Judge, Karachi Small Causes Courts, Karachi and another (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Karachi 795). Adverting to the merits of the case he submitted that the findings recorded in favor of the respondents by the Courts below, are supported by actual evidence on record and no case of misreading or non-reading of evidence has been made out warranting interference in concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below. The learned counsel invited my attention to written statement submitted on behalf of the petitioners and urged that in view of the admissions made therein the findings of the Courts below cannot be challenged successfully by way of filing instant revision petition. The learned counsel also contended that the acceptance of the claim of the petitioners by one Gulab, is immaterial and runs contrary to the evidence on record. The evidence produced on behalf of the respondents in support of their claim was referred in this connection. To substantiate the contentions reliance was placed on Mst. Khair-ul-Nisa and 6 others v. Malik Muhammad Ishaque and 2 others (PLD 1972 Supreme Court 25), Binyameen and 3 others v. Chaudhry Hakim and another (1996 SCMR 336), Azizur Rahman and another v. Atia Khan and 6 others (PLD 1976 Peshawar 60), Sardar Khan v.
Ghulam Sarwar and 2 others (PLD 1982 Azad J&K 128), Bashir Ahmad Khan and others v. North-West Frontier Province through Secretary, Agriculture and Forests, Peshawar and others (1989 CLC 1671 Peshawar) and Haji Muhammad Sarwar Khan v. Hussain Nawab and others (1992 CLC Peshawar 1915).
7. Adverting to the preliminary objection regarding limitation I find that same is not available to respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show that the revision in hand is barred by time and merits dismissal on the point of limitation. The case-law cited is distinguishable and has no bearing on the facts of the present case.
8. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties with reference to the material on file, the only question requiring determination would be, whether the plaintiffs- respondents are 'recorded in possession of suit-land as tenants-at-will or had any other status.
The perusal of the Revenue Record comprising 'Goshwara' (1904-1905) '(Exh.P.W.1/1) followed by the subsequent Jamabandis till 1946-1947, would reveal that plaintiffs-respondents/their predecessors-in-interest are shown in possession of suit-land as 'Seri Khor' and they are not liable to be ejected as tenants-at-will. The plaintiffs-respondents have brought sufficient evidence on record to substantiate their claim and the petitioners have failed to produce evidence in rebuttal.
The witnesses produced by the respondents were subjected to the test of searching and lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be elicited to shatter their credentials. I may pause here to mention that in written statement, the petitioners have also admitted that the respondents are 'Khuddam' in suit-land. It also stands established from evidence that respondents and their predecessor-in-interest had been rendering services to Ziart and graveyard and they were 'Mujawar Takia' relating to the property in suit. It has been contended with force that the acceptance of claim of the petitioners by one Gulab is sufficient to dislodge the assertion of the respondents. The submission is not tenable. The statement of Gulab in this respect runs contrary to the material on record. It is inconsequential. The next plea of learned counsel for the petitioners that material evidence has not been taken into account and that the findings returned against the petitioners are contrary to the evidence on file, is equally without substance. I find myself in agreement with learned counsel for the respondents that evidence in this case has been properly evaluated and appreciated by the Courts below and no case of misreading or non-reading of evidence has been made out. No jurisdictional defect or illegality in the appraisal of evidence has been either pointed out or is discernible on the face of the record.
9. A perusal of section 115, C.P.C. Would show that its scope is limited to cases where subordinate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction or has declined to exercise jurisdiction or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction in a manner contrary to law or in a manner not warranted by law. None of these defects were either pointed out in the proceedings or were glaringly apparent on the record. Both the Courts below have given a unanimous verdict regarding status of the respondents in respect of suit-land and I do not feel inclined to disturb the same, found to have been based on correct assessm ent of evidence.
10. I have gone through the case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners and in my view the same is distinguishable and proceeds on different facts. It does not promote the case of the petitioners in any manner.
11. In view of above discussion, finding no substance in this revision petition I dismiss the same with no order as to costs.