' Through this revision petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality of judgment and decree dated 28-10-1979 passed by the learned District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan whereby the appeal arising from judgment and decree dated 22-5-1978 passed by Civil Judge 2nd Class, Dera Ghazi Khan was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case, in .a narrow compass giving rise to this revision petition are that Muhammad Rafique respondent/plaintiff filed a declaratory suit against the petitioner/defendant to the effect that he was the owner in possession of property No.104 situate in Block -G, Dera Ghazi Khan (hereinafter to be called the property in dispute). It was narrated in the plaint that the disputed property was an evacuee one owned by Hindus and the respondent/plaintiff took the possession of the same after the Independence. It was further alleged that the respondent/plaintifi tried to get the suit property according to Law of Settlement and Rehabilitation whereupon the same was transferred in his favour through P.T.O. No.161857, dated 28-1-1960. It was further narrated that the respondent/plaintiff paid all the dues regarding the disputed property and P.T.D. Was issued in his favour on 11-11-1967 and he became the owner of the suit property; that the petitioner/defendant interfered in the disputed property and claimed to be the owner of some portion of the same whereupon the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration which was resisted by the petitioner/defendant. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as six issues. In support and rebuttal of the aforesaid issues, the respondent/plaintiff produced Syed Yousaf Hassan, Naqsha Nawais as P.W.1 and Abdus Sattar, Senior Clerk, Settlement Department as P.W.2, Record Keeper as P.W.3 and Muhammad Iqbal, Record Keeper, Sessions Court as P.W.4 and he himself appeared as P.W.5. He also produced documents Exhs.P.1 to P.12. In rebuttal the petitioner/defendant examined Abdus Sattar, Senior Clerk as D.W.1; he himself appeared as D.W.2 and also produced documents Exhs.D.1 to D.15. Ultimately all the issues we decided in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and the learned trial Court passed the judgment and decree in his favour restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with the possession or ownership of the respondent/plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree the petitioner/defendant went in appeal before the learned District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan who on 28-10-1979 dismissed the appeal and passed the impugned judgment, hence this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Courts are against law and facts; that both the learned Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the evidence; the findings of the learned lower Courts in all the issues are erroneous and misconceived; that the Appellate Court has confirmed the findings of the learned trial Court without applying its independent mind to the facts of the case.
4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent strongly repelled the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also supported the impugned judgments and decree passed by the learned lower Courts.
5. Heard both the parties. Record perused.
6. Record reveals that the respondent filed a suit for declaration against the petitioner to the effect that the was owner in possession of the disputed property to which the petitioner got no concern whatsoever, with a consequential relief that the petitioner be restrained permanently from interfering with his possession as owner of the disputed property. There is no denying the fact that the disputed property was an evacuee property possession of which was with respondent and the same was transferred in his name through P.T.O. Dated 28-1-1960. It has also come on the record that the P.T.D. Of the same was issued in favour of the respondent after paying all the dues of the same. The controversy between the parties relates to this effect that as to whether the disputed property is the same which was transferred in favour of respondent by way of P.T.D. Dated 11-11- 1967. From the perusal of the allotment order Exh.P.4, the disputed property bears No.104, Block-G, Dera Ghazi Khan as shop, which was allotted to respondent on 11-8-1952. Exh.P.5 i.e. Report of Rehabilitation Inspector is also indicative of the fact that the possession of the disputed property was with the respondent. The Form Abadkari, Exh.P.6 further clarifies the disputed property which consists of a shop 8 x 10 Ft. Alongwith courtyard, staircase and latrin measuring 2 Marlas. This fact is further fortified from the copy of Form submitted by the respondent for the allotment of the same which also tallies with the allotment order issued in favour of the respondent.
7. In view of the above discussion, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to substantiate that the property in dispute bears Settlement No.103-A instead of the same, the respondent has succeeded in proving that the disputed property is the same which was allotted' to him in 1952 and P.T.D. Regarding the same was also issued in his favour.
8. Consequently, all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not held good inasmuch as there is current findings of fact of both the Courts below, pertaining to Issues Nos.2 and 5 which are hereby maintained. Resultantly, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned lower Courts do not call for interference by this Court.
9. Resultantly, I this revision . find no merits in which is hereby revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.