PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 125
Present: Abid Hussain Chattha, J.
ABDUL RAZAQ and 5 others--Petitioners
versus
MADAD ALI and 3 others--Respondents
C.R. No. 26032 of 2021, heard on 15.5.2023.
Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)--
----S. 9--Suit for possession--Decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Concurrent findings--Ownership of suit property in name of respondent in record of rights--Refusal to vacate suit property--Petitioners were not found as owner of property--Petitioners were failed to prove regarding raising of construction over suit property from their own sources--Challenge to--Predecessor-in-interest of Respondents, filed suit for possession with respect to suit property fully described in plaint on basis of his ownership as per Register of Record of Rights for year 2009-2010--Petitioners were found not to be owner of even a single inch of landed property in concerned Mauza which was admitted by Petitioner No. 1 in his cross-examination--The Petitioners also failed to prove that they had raised construction over suit property from their own sources--Petitioners failed to prove their case of ownership qua suit property which was otherwise proved by Respondent--The existence of mere electricity connection in name of Petitioners in presence of mutation in favour of Respondent would not affect decision of case on its merits--The appraisal and reappraisal of evidence by Courts below while rendering concurrent findings is unexceptional warranting no interference by this Court in absence of any misreading or non-reading of evidence--Civil revision dismissed.
[Para 2, 4 & 6] A, B & C
Syed Umair Abbas, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. Arshad Ali Mahar, Advocate for Respondents
Date of hearing: 15.5.2023.
Judgment
This Civil Revision calls into question concurrent Judgments and Decrees dated 20.02.2020 and 08.03.2021 passed by Civil Judge and Additional District judge, Depalpur, District Okara, respectively.
2. Precisely, the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents, namely, Sardara (the “Respondent”) filed the suit for possession with respect to the suit property fully described in the paint on the basis of his ownership as per Register of Record of Rights for the year 2009-2010. It was contended that he had built two houses on the suit property and as the Petitioners did not have any residence to live, the Respondent allowed them to stay in one house built on the suit property in the presence of witnesses and possession was handed over to them. Upon refusal to vacate the suit property, the Respondent was constrained to file the suit. On the other hand, the Petitioners advanced a counter stance to the effect that they purchased the suit property and raised construction thereon from their own pocket.
3. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and respective evidence of the parties was recorded. Both the parties claimed ownership of the suit property on the basis of transfer from one Sardar Latif. The Respondent produced original transfer deed (Ex.P-4) issued by the Revenue Department in the nature of Mutation No. 298 dated 19.11.1990 along with attested copy of Register of Record of Rights (Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-3).
4. Conversely, the Petitioners were found not to be owner of even a single inch of the landed property in the concerned Mauza which was admitted by Petitioner No. 1 in his cross-examination. The Petitioners also failed to prove that they had raised construction over the suit property from their own sources. Accordingly, the Trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of possession in favour of the Respondent and the Appellate Court on the same premises dismissed the appeal of the Petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners was confronted to point out any illegality or infirmity or jurisdiction defect in the concurrent Judgments rendered by the Courts below. He submitted that demand notice dated 15.04.1999 issued by the LESCO and installation of electricity meter in the name of the Petitioners were not given due weight. It was further contended that the suit property was not fully demarcated or partitioned and was not specifically described in the plaint. He contended that it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to appoint a Revenue Officer to ascertain actual position and location of the suit property. Conversely, learned counsel for the Respondent defended the impugned Judgments and prayed for dismissal of the instant Petition.
6. The fact persists that the Petitioners failed to prove their case of ownership qua the suit property which was otherwise proved by the Respondent. The existence of mere electricity connection in the name of the Petitioners in the presence of mutation in favour of the Respondent would not affect the decision of the case on its merits. The appraisal and reappraisal of evidence by the Courts below while rendering the concurrent findings is unexceptional warranting no interference by this Court in the absence of any misreading or non-reading of evidence.
7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant Civil Revision, hence, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Y.A.) Civil revision dismissed
0 Comments