'Facts giving rise to the present revision petition are to the effect that Ahata No,33 measuring one Kanal 6 Marlas and 6 Sarsahies situated in Chak No,309- .113, TOW Gojra, District Toba Tak Singh, had been jointly owned by co-owners, namely, Manzoor Ahrnad, Muhammad Ayub, Barkat Ali, Rasoolan Bibi, Akhtar Ali, Sabeel Sajjad, Muhammad Tufail-and Allah Ditta, It was a joint property and Muhammad Ayub respondent one of the co-sharers of the property filed a suit for possession against the petitioner of the portion of his share alleging in the plaint that he had purchased 4 Marlas, 6 Sarsahies out of total land from Mst. Sharifan Bibi, Mst. Sakina Bibi, Mst. Seema Bibi daughters of Allah Ditta vide Mutation No,963 attested on 28-9-1998, from Muhammad Boota etc. Measuring 8 Sarsahies vide Mutation No, 264, total measuring 5 Marlas, 5 Sarsahies and vendors had delivered the possession of their share which was under their possession qua the plaintiff- respondent. The said mutations were incorporated in the Revenue Record in his favour. Before three months of the institution of the suit, Manzoor Ahmad defendant-petitioner forcibly occupied the share of the plaintiff by demolishing the wall of the Ahata separating his share and after constructing a wall 5 ft. Height included the share of the plaintiff into his own share and possession in their absence. The suit was contested by the defendant who filed his written statement, denying the averments of the plaint, taking a specific stand that he was owner in possession over 5 Marlas land of Ahata in which he has constructed his house and residing there. From the factual controversy appearing on the pleadings of the parties the trial Court led to frame various issues.
2. After recording and appreciating the evidence of the parties, the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 9-4-2002 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-petitioner had preferred an appeal which came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Gojra who vide impugned judgment and decree dated 6-3-2003 dismissed the appeal affirming the findings of the trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the suit property being a joint one, the possession of specific portion could not be claimed by a co-sharer except by a suit for partition. He placed reliance on cases of Muhammad Nawaz v. Sh. Abdul Latif 1971 SCM R 198 and Izhar-ud-Din v. Sardar Ahmad 1985 CLC 666.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the petitioner has forcibly taken the possession of the share of the plaintiff-respondent which he had purchased from Mst. Sharifan Bibi and others through two separate mutations mentioned above. Further argued that the vendors have delivered the possession of that Ahata in dispute which was in their possession. He relied on case of Shah Hussain v. Abdul Qayyum and others 1984 SCM R 427.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. There is no cavil with the fact that plaintiff-respondent had purchased the portion of Ahata out of joint Khata from some co-sharers through two separate Mutations of sales Nos.263 and 264. The stand of the petitioner is that he had also purchased five Marlas of land from Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Siddique but admitted in his statement that Muhammad Ayub had purchased the share of sister of Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Siddique. He admitted in his cross-examination that he had demolished centre wall of the Ahata which was on the eastern side thereafter he constructed four walls. The share of purchase by the plaintiff is admitted by the petitioner. The plaintiff-respondent has proved that fact by producing sufficient and convincing evidence on record that Manzoor, defendant-petitioner has forcibly occupied the portion of the Ahata in question. It is also established that possession of the land was delivered by the vendors to the plaintiff. This argument is further supported by the statement of the petitioner that he is owner of five Marlas of land which he had purchased from Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Siddique prior to the purchase by the plaintiff-respondent.
6. In case of Shah Hussain (supra) the Honourable Judges of Supreme Court of Pakistan had observed that specific field numbers of land in possession by a co-sharer for consideration can be transferred and share in such specific numbers exceeded his share, provided it does not exceed his overall entitlement in the land, the vendee's rights would be subject to adjustment on partition.
The apex Court has based its findings on the basis of case of Mustafa Khan v. Muhammad Khan PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 75 and Muhammad Muzaffar Khan reported as PLD 1959 SC (Pak.)
9. This principle had been further followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Sharif v.
Ghulam Hussain 1995 SCM R 514; Muhammad Afzal Khan v. Muhammad Latif 1995 CLC 1951 and Syed Jamal Shah v. Abdul Qadir Shah and another PLD 1995 Peshawar 26.
7. There is also concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner by the Courts below on the question of fact, observing that plaintiff-respondent had purchased the land out of Ahata in dispute towards eastern side which is admitted by the petitioner before the Court in his statement that he demolished the wall of the Ahata towards eastern side. The concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In this context reference can be placed to the cases of Guldar Khan v. Isa Khan 1993 SCM R 2099; Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291; Abdul Hakeem v. Habib Ullah 1997 SCM R 1139 and Abdul Qayyum v. Mushkle-iAlam 2001 SCM R 798.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgments passed by Courts below:
9. Resultantly, this revision petition having no force is dismissed.