ZAHOOR AHMAD Versus Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM
In the first instance on 11‑4‑1974, the respondents filed a suit against the petitioners. In the plaint, it was stated that they had purchased the suit land measuring 36 Kanals from ancestors of the petitioners and have been cultivating the same as owners. There was consolidation in the village and new numbers were allotted to the land as mentioned in para.2 of the plaint. However, the respondents continued in possession. The grievance made out was that in the Revenue Records the petitioners are continuing to be recorded as owners when they are in adverse possession for more than the prescribed period. The suit was resisted by the petitioners who denied the said allegations. It was explained that the land is owned by Khuda Bakhsh, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 and formed the part of joint Khata of the petitioners. Regarding consolidation it was explained that the said Khuda Bakhsh was given the suit land in lieu of the land owned by him. The allegation as to old possession was denied. On 16‑12‑2002 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents claiming that they are owners of the land while the respondents are their licensees due to relationship and since the licence has been revoked the possession be delivered. The suit was resisted with the averments made by the respondents in their plaint. Both the suits were consolidated. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide a judgment and decree dated 10‑2‑1992, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the petitioners and dismissed the suit of the respondents. A first appeal filed by the respondents was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Bhalwal who proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the petitioners and to decree suit of the respondents on 19‑12‑1995.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the claim of the respondents was based on self‑destructive pleas which could not have even been allowed to be taken at the same time. Further contends that the entries in the Revenue Record have been misread and in the process the law declared by the Superior Courts has not been followed by the learned Additional District Judge. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and decrees on the basis of entries relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records appended with this Civil Revision, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. A bare look on the plaint filed by the 'respondents and the defence taken in reply to the suits filed by the petitioners would show that the respondents, in fact, claimed under the petitioners. According to the plaint, on the one hand, it was claimed that the land had been purchased from the ancestors of the respondents and at the same time plea of adverse possession was taken. As to whether or not the pleas could be taken, I will deal with it later on time. Let me first refer to the Revenue Record available on the file. Exh.P/1 is the Register Haqdaran‑e‑Zameen for the year 1937‑38. The said Khuda Bakhsh, Ahmed Din (predecessor‑in‑interest of petitioners No.8 to 14) and Qasim (predecessor‑in‑interest of petitioners No. 15 to 22) are recorded as owners. Possession is recorded to be that of Khuda Bakhsh through the respondents as non‑occupancy tenants. In the column of Lagan the entry is ( ﺖﻴﻜﻠﻣ ﻝﺎﻴﺨ ﻪﺠﻭﺑ ﻥﺎﻜﻠﺎﻣ ﺡﺭﺷﺒ ). Exh.P/2 is the record for 1941‑42, P/3 for 1950‑51, P/4 is 1955‑56, P/5 to P/10 covered the period from 1921‑22 to 1963‑64 P/11 to P/14 is the Khasra Girdawari for Kharif, 1964 to Kharif, 1974. I find that Khatuni Ishtemal has also been numbered as Exh.P/5. According to this document, Khuda Bakhsh is recorded to be the sole owner and the entries in record are the same. In the Khasra Girdawari the entries are ( ﻯﺭﺍﺪ ﻪﺗﺷﺭ ﻪﺠﻭﺑ ﺖﻳﻜﻠﻤﺭﻭﺻﺗ ﻪﺑ ﻥﺎﮔﻠ ﺎﻠﺒ ).
4. Now the learned Additional District Judge has treated the said entry to be by itself the proof of adverse possession. The law on the subject is well‑settled by now. In several pronouncements the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that the presumption of truth in the matter of the said periodical records is attached only to the column of ownership and possession and not to the column of Lagan. It has further been held that entry in the said column is to be proved independent of the contents of the said entry. Reference may be made to the case of Gul Muhammad through Legal Heirs v. Allah Yar Khan and 15 others (1993 SCMR 2330) as also Said Amir and others v. Ashraf Khan and others (PLD 1986 SC 113).
Needless to state that even the learned Additional District Judge has not pointed out to any evidence in support of ownership of the respondents. On the other hand, the entire evidence on record goes to show that the petitioners are the owners, both before the consolidation and after the consolidation and that the land has been given in lieu of land owned by Khuda Bakhsh.
5. The said other contention of the learned counsel is also supported by the case of Abdul Majeed and 6 others v. Muhammad Subhan and 2 others (1999 SCMR 1245) where their Lordships have observed that a person who asserts ownership over a certain property by purchase would not be legally justified at the same time to say that his occupation of the property was hostile or adverse as against the real owner.
6. For all that has been discussed above, I do find that the learned Additional District Judge has mis‑read the evidence on record. He has failed to follow the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the matter of interpreting the entries that have been reproduced by me and as such the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained in this Civil Revision. The Civil Revision is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 19‑12‑1995 of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhalwal is set aside while the one passed by the learned trial Court on 10‑2‑1992 is restored with costs.
H. B. T./Z‑119/L Revision allowed.