On 14-9-1987 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondent. In the plaint it was stated that Said Ahmad the father of original plaintiffs was the owner of land measuring 4 Marlas, 7 Sarsahis.
Described in para.1 of the plaint alongwith/ shop constructed over it who gifted away the said property to the plaintiffs vide registered gift-deed dated 25-4-1987. The respondent No.1 was a tenant but he stopped paying rent. With these averments declaration was sought that the petitioners are owners of the suit property and, that the Revenue Records be not changed by respondent No.2. The-respondent No. 11 in his written statement took the plea that their father Khuda Bakhsh was in possession since 1942-43 and thereafter they are continuing in possession. It was further stated that the construction has been raised by them. It was explained that Said Ahmed was owner of 9 Marlas, 3 Sarsahis of land in Khewat No.61 where he built house and is in possession. Reference was also made to registered sale-deed dated 9-9-1942 and 5-1-1944 as also Mutation No.667 whereby father of respondent No.1 had acquired the suit property. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide judgment and decree dated 28-5-1991, learned trial Court partly decreed the suit inasmuch as it declared the petitioners to be owners of five Sarsahis of land in Khasra No.357 and advised them to file a suit for partition to get separate possession of the said land. Both the parties felt aggrieved and filed first appeals. These appeals were heard together by a learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, who dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners but allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 and consequently dismissed the suit in its entirety on 22-12-1996.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks adjournment on the ground that. One of his clients is dead. I find that this case came up on 27-5-2002 when both the parties were warned that further adjournment shall not be given. I am therefore, not inclined to adjourn this case on the said ground.
3. I have examined the records, appended with .This civil revision, with assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have already referred to the respective pleadings of the parties above. The precise case set up in the plaint was that Said Ahmad the father of the plaintiffs owned land measuring 4 Marlas, 7 Sarsahis being 19/5864 share in the land measuring 73 Kanals, 14 Marlas, 7 Sarsahis in Khewat No.61 comprising Khasra Nos.355, 356 and 357 and that he built shop and consequently gifted away the same to the plaintiffs and that respondent, No.1 was a tenant in the said property. Now the plaint is silent as to how Said Ahmad acquired the said specific property. He, however, himself appeared in the witness-box as P.W.1 and opted to remain silent during the course of his examination-in---chief as to source of title in the said specific property. In his cross- examination he stated that in Khata No.61 he has 2 Kanals of land which is built in its entirety and this include his residential house which measures about 9 Marlas. He further explained out of these two Kanals he inherited 14 Marlas from his father and 5 Sarsahis he acquired from his nephew Muhammad Rafique. He then stated that apart from this area he has no other land in Khewat No.61.
He also adrriitted that Khata No.61 is joint. And that respondents own land in the said Khata and is in possession of his own Khasra number. Similarly Nasrullah, one of the plaintiffs appeared as D.W.2 and did not disclose the source of title of his father in the examination-in-chief. In his cross- examination he proceeded to state that his father got 10 Marlas from his grandfather, 2 Marlas and 4 Sarsahis, from his nephew and 2 Marlas and 3 Sarsahis from his sister. Thus according to Said Ahmad P.W.1 he had 14 Marlas, 5 Sarsahis of land while according to his son he has same area but source of acquisition is bit different. He further stated that his father got the land from his nephew through Mutation No.410. Now copy of this mutation is on record as Exh.P.7. According to this document Said Ahmad purchased 7/17592 share in land measuring 73 Kanals 14 Marals, 7 Sarsahis from Faiz Ahmad etc. This area. Was worked out in mutation as 5 Sarsahis. It will be noted that this 5 Sarsahis were purchased from the entire Khewat i.e. Out of 72 Kanals, 14 Marlas and 7 Sarsahis.
Now petitioner produced Exh.P.3 which is Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1984-85 pertaining to Khasra No.357. The share of said Faiz Ahmad etc. Is recorded as 7/8796 out of 8 Sarsahis which is the entire area of Khasra No.357. Now in the remarks column the Patwari has noted the said transaction i.e. Mutation No.410 (Exh.P.7). The learned Additional District Judge has very correctly calculated that 7/8796 of 8 Sarsahis would be almost nil. No record pertaining to the remaining two Khasra Nos. i.e. 335 and 35,6 has been produced except Khasra Girdawari Exh.P.6 which pertains to Khasras Nos.356 and 357. However, these entries stand rebutted in the statement of Riasat Ali Patwari D.W.5 as also Mushtaq Ahmad Patwari D.W.4. Exh.P.4 which is the copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1984-85 discloses that the total area belonging to Said Ahmad comes to 9 Marlas. This includes the transaction vide Mutation 410. Now it stands admitted on record that the house built by Said Ahmad is an area of 9 Marlas and is in his possession.
4. Having thus examined the evidence on record, I find that the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is in complete accord therewith: No ground stands made out for interference with the impugned judgment within the meaning of section 115, C.P.C. This civil revision is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear there own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.