The declaratory suit instituted by the respondents was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 21-2-1990 where against the appeal filed by them was accepted by the First Appellate Court on 14-3-1993. This is revision petition against the same.
2. The learned counsel contends that the Appellate Court has ignored the material piece of evidence in coming to its conclusions particularly the statement of Muhammad Hussain P.W.1.
According to him, the judgment is result of misreading and non --reading of the evidence on the record. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the findings and the judgment rendered by the learned Appellate Court and contends that petitioners Nos.3 to 7 had sold the land in excess of their entitlement and that sale-deed dated 7-10-1985 was ineffective qua the rights of the respondents/plaintiffs.
3. Record has been perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The case pleaded by the respondents was contested by the petitioners/defendants by filing written statement, which gave rise to necessary issues. Issue No.4 was of relevance and importance in the context of the controversy which reads as under:-- "Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the property in question and entries in Revenue Record and Registered Sale-deed No. 4119 dated 7-10-1985 is illegal, void and ineffective as against the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP The onus of the issue was on the respondents/plaintiffs. In support of their plea Muhammad Hussain, P.W.1 one of the plaintiffs/respondents entered appearance. In his deposition, it was stated by him that petitioners have alienated the land in excess of their entitlement to the extent of 5-1/2 Marlas. It was also admitted by him in cross-- examination that he was owning land measuring 29 Kanals already. It may be mentioned that according to the admitted position the total share of the respondents/plaintiffs was 29 Kanals, 5-1/2 Marlas. Needless to state that the plaintiff is to succeed on the strength of his own case and not the weakness of the other side. They could not claim over and above their own entitlement. The admitted shortfall was only 5-1/2 Marlas. In this view of the matter, it needs to be clarified that the judgment of the Appellate Court will be construed in this context. The suit of respondents/plaintiffs will stand decreed to the extent of 5-1/2 Marlas only.
The revision is disposed of with the above modification accordingly. No order as to costs.