Detail of suit property was not mentioned by appellant in his statement---Non-producing of demarcation report--Sole witness-

 PLJ 2024 Lahore (Note) 46
Present: Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J.
BASHIR AHMAD (deceased) through his Legal Heirs--Appellants
versus
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE etc.--Respondents
R.S.A. No. 2219 of 2019, decided on 18.12.2023.

Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)--

----Ss. 9 & 54--Suit for possession and perpetual injunction--Dismissed--Appeal--Non-producing of demarcation report--Sole witness--No independant witness was produced by appellant--Detail of suit property was not mentioned by appellant in his statement--Challenge to--The appellant also did not mention in his statement that from whom he had purchased suit property--He also did not mention details of alleged registered sale deed in his favour--During cross examination he stated that at time of sale deed, demarcation of land was made by owners but neither  demarcation report nor any witness of said process was produced by him--Appellant appeared as a sole witness and did not produce any other independent witness to support his version--Courts below rightly dismissed claim of appellant--Counsel for appellant had not pointed out any ground whereby his appeal falls within mischief of Section 100 of CPC--Nothing has been shown as to how decisions given by Courts below were contrary to law or there had been failure of Courts below in determining issue of law or usage having force of law--Appeal dismissed.   [Para 4 & 5] A & B

2022 SCMR 284 ref.

Mian Waqas Akhtar and Sh. Sajid Mehmood, Advocates for Appellants.

Ms. Gulzar Butt, Advocate for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 18.12.2023.

Judgment

Through this regular second appeal the appellants have challenged the validity of the judgment & decree dated 14.12.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nankana Sahib who dismissed the suit for possession alongwith perpetual injunction filed by the appellants and also assailed the judgment & decree dated 18.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nankana Sahib who dismissed the appeal of the appellants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession alongwith perpetual injunction regarding land measuring 08 Kanal fully described in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint against the respondents/defendants and contended that the respondents/defendants are in illegal possession of the suit land. The respondents/defendants filed contesting written statement. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed issues, recorded pro and contra evidence of the parties and finally dismissed the suit vide judgment & decree dated 14.12.2015. Being dejected, the appellants filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment & decree dated 18.10.2018. Hence, this second appeal.

3. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record.

4. Bashir Ahmad, the appellant/plaintiff averred in the plaint that land measuring 08 Kanal was purchased by him and he raised construction but while appearing as P.W.1 he deposed that he purchased land about 12/13 years ago. The said P.W. recorded statement on 23.02.2015 whereas he neither produced any registered sale deed nor mutation of the suit land in his favour. The appellant/plaintiff produced copy of Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1981-1982 which shows that as per his own statement he purchased the suit property 12/13 years ago [i.e. about 2002/2003] whereas he produced the alleged revenue record in his favour pertaining to year 1981 which belies the veracity of the said document. The appellant/plaintiff also did not mention in his statement that from whom he had purchased the suit property. He also did not mention the details of the alleged registered sale deed or mutation in his favour. During cross examination he stated that at the time of sale deed, the demarcation of the land was made by the owners but neither the said demarcation report nor any witness of the said process was produced by him. Further, the appellant/plaintiff appeared as a sole witness and did not produce any other independent witness to support his version. Thus, the Courts below rightly dismissed the claim of the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has not pointed out any ground whereby his appeal falls within the mischief of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nothing has been shown as to how the decisions given by the Courts below are contrary to law or there has been failure of the Courts below in determining the issue of law or usage having force of law. The Courts below have properly appreciated the record and no illegality has been pointed out warranting interference in this second appeal. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Bahar Shah & others vs. Manzoor Ahmad (2022 SCMR 284).

6. Consequently, this appeal has no merit which is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Y.A.)  Appeal dismissed