1. ' MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.---The plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit on 5-3-1992 against defendant/respondent for possession of plot measuridg 1 Kanal, 19 Marlas, 215 Sq.Ft. In Khasra No,9031 min situate in Katcha Zaildar Road, Lahore. It was averred in the plaint that the plot in question was transferred by the Settlement Department to the plaintiffs in lieu of their verified claim. The plaintiffs sold their land in the shape of plots but retained the plot in question for construction of residential house for themselves. A portion of the suit plot was rented out to the defendant/respondent in March, 1970 at a rent of Rs,35 per month. The other portion of the plot was let out to one Abdul Lateef who vacated the premises after some time and the defendant/ respondent took over the possession of the IInd portion as well The defendant failed to pay the monthly rent since 1974. The plaintiffs were constraint to file an ejectment petition on 6-6-1975 before the learned Rent Controller, Lahore who dismissed the same on 26-6-1976 mainly on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. The appeal before the learned Additional District Judge succeeded and the case was remanded to the learned Rent Controller on 31-5-1977. The learned Rent Controller again dismissed the ejectment petition on 10-2-1982. The appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore met the same fate on 30-4-1983. The Constitutional Petition No,4173 of 1983 was filed in the High Court against the order dated 30-4-1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge which was allowed by this Court on 4-5-1987 and the case was remanded to the Appellate Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. The defendant challenged the order of this Court dated 45-1987 before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition No,446 of 1987 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 21- 5-1988. On remand the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs vide order dated 18-7-1989. The plaintiffs/ appellants assailed the same in Writ Petition No,6128 of 1989 but the same was dismissed on 23- 10-1991. They also remained unsuccessful before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition No,1126-L of 1991.
2. ' The defendant filed a suit on 18-12-1974 for permanent injunction claiming adverse possession of the plot in dispute. The suit was decreed on 20-5-1982 by the learned trial Court. On appeal the judgment/decree was reversed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore vide judgment dated 22- 12-1983 and the suit of the defendant on the ground of adverse possession was dismissed. The defendant filed Civil Revision No, 1382-D of 1984 in this Court which was dismissed in limine on 28- 10-1984. The ownership of the plot vested in the plaintiffs. Despite repeated requests for vacation of the plot the defendant has remained adamant and declined to deliver the possession of the plot to the plaintiffs.
3. ' The suit was resisted by the defendant/respondent raising preliminary objection of limitation and 'res judicata'. The ownership of the plaintiffs was denied on the ground that the allotment in their favour was based on fraud and misrepresentation. The defendant was in adverse possession of the suit plot.
4. ' Out of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff is owner or the suit property and entitled to recover possession of the suit property? OPP
(2) Whether Mr. Abdul Sattar is not legally constituted attorney for the plaintiffs Nos.1 to 5 and the suit has not been properly constituted? If so its effect? OPP
(3) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiff committed fraud and misrepresentation in procuring allotment of the suit property without any lawful authority? If so its effect? OPD
(6) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(7) Whether the suit is barred under the principle of res judicata? OPD
(8) Whether the defendants are owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of adverse possession? OPD
(9) Whether the defendants are owners of the suit property under the principle of prescription? OPD
(10) Whether the plaintiff's suit is false, mala fide and vexatious and liable to compensatory costs under 35-A, C.P.C.? OPD
(11) Relief.
5. ' The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners on 5-6-1996. Issue No,1 in respect of ownership was decided in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants. Issue No,3 regarding limitation and Issues Nos.8 and 9 regarding adverse possession were decided in favour of the defendant/ respondent and against the plaintiffs/ appellants.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the suit was not barred by time nor the principle of 'res judicata' was applicable to the facts of the instant case. He urged that the adverse possession of the respondent was not proved on the record.
6. ' Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned judgment stating that the respondent had become the owner of the property long ago by virtue of his adverse possession on the suit-land.
3. We have gone through the judgment of the trial Court and perused the record. Issue No,1 in respect of ownership of the suit property has been decided in favour of plaintiffs/appellants.
7. Neither appeal nor cross-objections have been filed by the respondent, the finding on Issue No,1 has attained finality. The ownership of the plaintiffs/appellants is no more in dispute.
8. ' The plaintiffs have produced "Naga] Khasra Amarati" Mauza Ichhra for the year 1968-69, Exh.P.2 showing the plaintiffs/appellants as owners-in-possession of the suit-land/plot in Khasra No,9031/1.
9. "Nagai Khasra Amarati" Mauza Ichhra for the year 1984-85, Exh.P.3 also shows the plaintiffs/appellants as owners in possession of the suit-land, rot. We do not find any entry about adverse possession of the respondent in the said two documents. In order to show the possession as hostile the same has to be proved from documentary evidence. Adverse possession cannot be established by mere word of mouth. In the absence of clear evidence about unambiguous, open and notorious disclaimer of the title of the true owners, possession of the respondent on the land could not be held adverse for giving title to him. The respondent had only produced oral evidence and no document from the Revenue Record in order to substantiate his version has been brought on the record. See Barkat Mondal and others v. Baitulla Bepari and others PLD 1970 Dacca 407. We are not inclined to accept the oral version of the respondent.
10. ' The suit of the plaintiff for declaration that he was in adverse possession of the suit-land was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide judgment Exh.P.7. The contention of the learned counsel that the adverse possession of the respondent on the property is proved also goes by the board.
11. ' The provisions of section 28 of Limitation Act, 1908, have been declared repugnant to the injunctions of Islam by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Maqbool Ahmad v.
12. Government of Pakistan and others 1991 SCM R 2063 and the same ceased to have effect w.e.f, August 31, 1991. It is well-settled by now that no decree can be passed on the ground of adverse possession after the target date i.e, 31-8-1991. See Mst. Walayat Jan and 7 others v. Habib Ullah Khan and 4 others 1992 M LD 751, Abdul Latif and 5 others v. Manzoor Ahmad and others 1993 M LD 177, Muhammad Ashraf and others v. Bholu and others 1994 M LD 81, Abdul Hameed and another v.
13. Mst. Aaleeman (deceased) through Legal Representative and others 2002 YLR 3864 and Muhammad Aslam and another v. Muhammad Sarfraz Khan and others 1996 M LD 1216. Similarly no plea of adverse possession could be raised in defence nor was it available to any defendant nor any suit for recovery of possession could be dismissed after the target date on the ground of title having matured in favour of defendant on the basis of adverse possession. In the circumstances stated above the question of limitation would not arise.
14. ' As far as the question of 'res judicata' is concerned the previous.Petition filed by the appellants against the respondent was for ejectment of the respondent. Question of title was not decided in the said ejectment petition. We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the findings of the learned trial Court on Issues Nos.3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 and decree the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants.