Civil Revision No, 88-D of 2003 involving the same questions of law and fact will also be disposed of through this judgment.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these revisions are that the petitioners had filed two suits, one for declaration that they are owners of 1/2 shares in Plot No, 330 (disputed plot) by virtue of an agreement deed executed by the late father of respondents who was its allottee and the other suit was for declaration that Muhammad Nawaz Petitioner No, 1 is in possession of the disputed plot where he is running business of saw machine with consequential reliefs of prohibitory and mandatory injunctions respectively restraining the respondents from interfering with the said business of Respondent No, 1 and directing them to remove the obstruction whereby they had blocked the petitioners access to the disputed plot.
3. Both the suits were consolidated and after framing issues and recording evidence they were dismissed by the learned trial Court through consolidated judgment dated 19.6.2001.
4. Petitioners filed appeals against the aforesaid decrees passed in the two suits but they were also dismissed on 2.12.2002 vide consolidated judgment by ADJ, Multan.
5. In these civil revisions the petitioners have assailed the aforesaid concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below.
6. The civil revisions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondents.
7. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the Courts below had misread and overlooked evidence, agreement deeds Ex. P1 and P2 were sufficient to prove title of the petitioner; it was borne out from evidence produced by the petitioners that instalments regarding that plot were paid by them to the MDA; petitioners' application for seeking permission to produce additional evidence for proving execution of the agreement deeds was illegally turned down; that observation of the learned appellate Court that plaintiffs should have filed suit for specific performance is erroneous because agreement deeds Ex. P1 and P2 per se confer, title on the petitioners; that petitioners' application for seeking amendment in their plaints so as to include the plea of adverse possession was illegally rejected and that respondents had produced in their evidence photo-copies ,of documents which could not have been legally considered.
8. Both the revision petitions were opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
9. Arguments heard. Civil revisions and annexures appended therewith perused.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not draw my attention to any material piece of evidence which was allegedly overlooked or misread by the Courts below. His contention that agreement deeds Ex. P1 and P2 were sufficient to prove title is misconceived because transfer of immovable property worth Rs, 100/- or more could only be transacted by a registered instrument of 'transfer. Mere agreement in writing did not create any right, title or interest in the property irrespective of the fact that instalments of the disputed plot may have been paid to the MDA by the petitioners. Learned appellate Court had rightly observed that even if the execution of the agreements was proved, it would have been of no legal significance because the agreements per se do not operate to create title in favour of the petitioners. It was, therefore, useless to allow the application permitting the petitioners to prove the execution of the aforesaid agreements.
11.No illegality was committed by the learned appellate Court in rejecting the application for seeking amendment in the plaint for including additional plea of adverse possession as it was no more available under the law of the land.
12, Adverting to the last submission of the petitioners' counsel it may be observed that the suits were dismissed because the petitioners could not prove their claim. They were not dismissed on account of defendants/ respondents' evidence. Hence the petitioners were not prejudiced by the photo-copies of documents produced in evidence by the respondents.
13. Revisional jurisdiction is directed against irregular exercise, non-exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction and not against conclusions of fact or law not involving question of jurisdiction.
14.Findings of both the Courts below are based on evidence and are supported by sound and plausible reasoning, against such finding interference is not called for in revisional jurisdiction. Both the civil revisions are accordingly dismissed.