' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-12- 2002 passed by learned single Judge of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby revision petition preferred on behalf of respondents has been accepted and the suit of petitioners was dismissed.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case as enumerated in theimpugned judgment are to the effect that Habib Khan and others plaintiffs/respondents filed suit No,11/1 against Dilbar and 131 others petitioners/defendants in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge/Aala Illaqa Qazi District Swat, seeking declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of the suit-land fully described in the heading of the plaint and that the defendants have got no rights to deny their title and any sale, exchange, or mortgage done by defendants in respect of the suit-land was illegal, hence ineffective upon the rights of respondents/ plaintiffs. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants to interfere intothe disputed land and for correction of Revenue Record was also sought. In the alternative a prayer for possession was also made. The said suit was resisted by the petitioners/defendants by filing written statement. The learned trial Court after framing issues, recording pro and contra evidence of the parties decreed the suit in favour of respondents/ plaintiffs vide judgment and decree, dated 7-12-1992. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and decree Mst. Bakht Mina and others, petitioners filed Appeals Nos.251/13 of 1992 in the Court of learned District Judge/Zilla Qazi, Swat but the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 8-2-1994. Being not content with the judgments and decrees of the Courts below the petitioners have filed revision petition in hand", which has been accepted vide judgment impugned, hence this petition.
3. We have heard Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned ASC on behalf of petitioner at length who mainly contended that the ownership was claimed on the basis of adverse possession which aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned High Court and on this score alone the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside. It is next contended that the concurrent findings of facts could not have been reversed by the learned High Court without sufficient lawful justification which was lacking but ignored without any rhyme and, reason. In support of his contention Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned ASC has placed reliance on the following authorities:-- ' Mst. Ghulam Janat v. Ghulam Janat 2003 SCM R 362; Zarshad v. Shah Gul PLD 2003 SC 650; Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna 2001 SCM R 1700; Samar Gul v. Mohabat Khan 2000 SCM R 974; Anwar Zaman v. Bahadur Sher 2000 SCM R 431; Abdul Hakeem v. Habibullah 1997 SCM R 1139 and Fazal Muhammad Bhatti v. Saeeda Akhtar 1993 SCM R 2018.
' It is next contended that the entire suit could not have been dismissed as learned High Court itself has observed that certain chunks of land were not disputed as purchased by the petitioners and admitted by respondents.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioners in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely scanned the entire evidence with the eminent assistance of learned counsel and also perused the judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge, dated 7-12-1992, judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Swat, dated 8-2-1994 as well as the judgment impugned. A careful scrutiny of the entire record would reveal that the controversy was resolved on two different occasions by the then Ruler of Swat holding that the land in dispute could be cultivated by the petitioners till final adjudication of the dispute but ownership or title was never conferred upon the petitioners. In 1961 when the dispute arose for the first time Amarji (plaintiff No,4) had admitted in a categoric manner before the Tehsiidar that the ownership of the land was never claimed but on the contrary the land in dispute was required to be cultivated to utilize its usufruct in lieu of their services being rendered in the capacity of Ironsmith and carpenters. The undertaking given by Amarji (plaintiff No,4) was incorporated in the "Book of decisions agreement Tehsil" on 20-4-1961 which was brought on record as Exh.D.W.1/1 and never rebutted. In 1963 again dispute arose between Pakhtuns and Amarji (plaintiff No,4) concerning the disputed property and Amarji was allowed to cultivate the land by the then Ruler of Swat but ownership was never conferred upon him. The decision dated 18-6-1963 made in this regard was also brought on record as Exh.P.W.1/15 and Exh.P.W.1/4. It is to be noted that the said decision was made by the Ex-Ruler of Swat after having referred the matter to the elders of the area on 19-6-1963 which was indicative of the fact that Amarji could not substantiate the factum of ownership by producing cogent and concrete evidence. On the basis of Exh.D.W.1/1, Exh.P.W.1/15 and Exh.P.W.1/4 which were duly brought on record and not rebutted, it can be inferred safely that neither the ownership/title of land in dispute was conferred upon the petitioners nor the ownership/title was claimed by the petitioners. There is no denying the fact that the land remained under cultivation by them to utilize its usufruct in lieu of their service being ironsmith and carpenters. We are afraid that after a long period of about four decades the ownership of the land in question cannot be claimed on the basis of adverse possession which was never argued before the learned High Court. A careful scrutiny of the entire record would reveal that it was never the case of petitioners that the ownership of the property in question was devolved upon them as a result of their being in adverse possession which contention has been raised by Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned ASC in oblivion of the well-entrenched legal proposition that "adverse possession must be adequate in continuity publicity and extent to establish title. Act of possession exercised at interval over different portions of land in different years cannot amount to adverse possession. To be effective adverse possession must be actual, exclusive, visible hostile and continuous for statutory period without any legal origin". It hardly needs any elaboration that adverse possession being question of law and tact cannot be agitated at the first time before this Court and the persons claiming title of adverse possession must prove it by leading forthright and concrete evidence which could not be led by the petitioners. Mere cultivation of land in dispute to utilize its usufruct is no proof of ownership. The petitioners failed to show that during twelve years before partition their possession of the suit-land was as hostile as open and as dishonest as was required in case of such-like nature. In our considered view the petitioners failed miserably to prove the factum of adverse possession and in such an eventuality the question of ownership does not arise. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in cases titled Ghulam Hussain v. Iqbal Ahmad PLD 1991 SC 290; Shafaullah v. Saifur Rehman PLD 1991 SC 1106 and Bashir Ahmad v. Mushtaq Ahmed 1982 SCM R 663. It would be appropriate to mention here at this juncture that Amarji (plaintiff No,4) himself had admitted their permissive possession (Exh.D.W.1/4) which is not synonymous or interchangeable to that of adverse possession rather both are self-destructive being irreconcilable pleas the ownership cannot be claimed simultaneously on the basis of adverse possession as well as that of permissive possession. It was also observed by the then Ruler of Swat (Exh.P.W.1/4) that the petitioners failed to substantiate the claim of ownership by producing cogent, concrete and reliable evidence. The learned High Court has decided the controversy after having gone through the entire evidence with diligent application of mind vide judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is. Reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference which being well based does not admit interference:-- "14. Keeping in view the above mentioned documents it can safely he held that Amarji or the plaintiffs had never been held to be owners of the property in dispute by the Ex-Ruler but their possession over the suit property was admitted in the capacity of Ironsmith and Carpenter and they were allowed to continue to cultivate the same and utilize its yield in lieu of their services rendered to Pakhtuns. As mentioned above, Amerji plaintiff No,4 vide Exh.D.W.1/4 had also admitted that their possession was permissive. They have failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove their ownership, therefore, the plea of the respondents/plaintiffs that they have matured their title over the suit property is also of no substance because on the one hand they claimed to be the owners of the suit property and on the other hand they had claimed that they had matured their title. Both the pleas are self-destructive. Moreover, when it has been held in the above paragraphs that their possession was permissive, then how could they claim that their title had been matured due to adverse possession."
5. It is well-entrenched legal proposition that concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below could not be reversed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as conferred upon the High Court under section 115, C.P.C. And learned ASC has rightly referred and relied upon various authorities as mentioned in the preceding paragraph but it should not be ignored that such concurrent findings cannot be termed as "sacrosanct" and could be reversed if the same are based on insufficient evidence, misreading of evidence, non-consideration of material piece of evidence, erroneous assumption of facts and patent error of law. We are not persuaded to agree with Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned ASC that concurrent findings must be kept intact irrespective of the fact whether the same are erroneous or otherwise.
6. It is to be noted that a line of distinction has been drawn between disputed and undisputed property by the High Court and observed as follows:-- "(12) The perusal of the case file shows that land comprising Khasra Nos.2873, 2880, 2881, 2913/min, 2914 and 2915 was purchased by respondents/plaintiffs vide deeds Exh.P.W.1/4 to Exh.P.W.1/14. The said sale-deeds in their favour had been admitted by the petitioners, therefore, there is no dispute left over the land mentioned above."
7. The dismissal of the suit by the High Court would have no bearing on the above mentioned property which is not disputed and judgment impugned to that effect had attained finality because it was never challenged by the respondents but ownership of the petitioners was admitted by them.
8. Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned ASC on behalf of petitioners failed to point out any such circumstances which might lead to supposition that any illegalty, irregularity or substantial error of law has been committed by the learned High Court. The judgment impugned being well based does not warrant interference. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and .