JUDGMENT SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.- A suit for declaration with consequential relief instituted by the respondents was contested by the petitioners/defendants which after due trial was decreed by the Trial Court vide its judgment dated 26.10.1992. Appeal preferred thereagainst by the petitioners was dismissed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Samundari on 20.10.1994. The same are sought to be assailed through this revision petition.
2. Findings concurrently recorded by the two Courts below are ordinarily considered as sacrosanct unless suffering from patent illegality. Re-appraisal and appreciation of the evidence also is not the function of this Court unless gross misreading and non-reading of the evidence is established.
The Learned counsel for the petitioners has endeavoured to show that the evidence led by the petitioners/defendants has either not been considered or not correctly appreciated. Reference to Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5 and Mark-A has been made by him. It is thus contended that possession of the petitioners qua the suit .Property was established and the Courts below committed an error and illegality in granting decree in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. The Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has with reference to the evidence on the record, in particular the revenue record i.e. Jamabandi of 1956-57 and onward contended that Muhammad Anwar Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/plaintiffs had been in possession at the relevant time and become owner of the suit property by operation of law under Settlement Scheme No. VII.
3. Dispute subject-matter of the suit concerned with Ahata No. 4 measuring 1 kanal, 5 marlas situated in chak No. 138, G.B. Samundari. The respondents had claimed ownership thereof on the basis of possession in view of Settlement Scheme No. VII that Muhammad Anwar Khan was in possession in January, 1961. Essential aspect of the matter thus was as to who was in possession of the suit property on the target date i.e. 1.1.1961 as contemplated by Settlement Scheme No. VII. Apart from the oral evidence the documentary evidence produced by the respondents/plaintiffs i. e.
Copies of Jamabandi for the year 1956-57, 1964-65, 1972-73 and 1980-81 continued to show Muhammad Anwar Khan in Column No. 8. For the first time it was in the Jamabandi of 1984-85 that entry about the petitioners/defendants appeared in the revenue record. It has been contended and rightly so that there was no basis for abrupt change of long-standing entries in the revenue record. The reliance of the petitioners upon Mark-A an Iqrarnama executed by one Mahboob Ali Shah in the year 1952 was of no avail in presence of the entries in the revenue record to the contrary. The said agreement never found reflection in the relevant record. The reliance of the two Courts below on the entries of Jamabandi, in particular the view formed by the Appellate Court is consistent with the documentary evidence i. e. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-6 which goes to support the case of the respondents/plaintiffs. Since at the relevant time i. e. 1.1.1961 Muhammad Anwar Khan had been in possession of the suit property, he had become owner by operation of law under Settlement Scheme No. VII. Reference in this context may be made to Muhammad Hussain v.
Muhammad Hussain and others (1982 SCM R 1163) and Hav. Muhammad Akbar and others v. Adalat Khan and another (1985 SCM R 169). The view thus taken by the two Courts below is consistent with the facts established on the record and the law applicable thereto. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners about the nonconsideration of the evidence led by the petitioners has no substance in view of the fact that the material date was January, 1961, when Muhammad Anwar Khan was found in possession of the suit property. Possession of the property of any subsequent period was of no avail. Even the report of the spot inspection looses its significance in the context of the real controversy. Objection as to the lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the maintainability of the suit has also been duly attended and answered by the Courts below. No illegality has been committed by the Courts below in arriving at their concurrent view in the matter.
In view of the above, I find no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below. The revision petition thus is dismissed. No order as to costs.