BASHIR AHMAD Versus CHIRAGH DIN

ORDER

This revision application by Bashir Ahmad/defendant under section 115 of C.P.C., is directed against the judgment and decree of variance dated 6‑7‑1992 by which the learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Kasur accepted tile appeal filed by Chiragh Din/plaintiff, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kasur, dated 28‑4‑1991 and decreed the suit for recovery of possession of the house in dispute instituted by the respondent.

2. Few facts relevant for the disposal of this revision application are: that on 16‑11‑1987 the respondent brought a suit for possession of a house (completely described in the plaint) against the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge; Kasur, alleging therein that the house in dispute was owned by his father Mahi Din and after his demise it was inherited by his three sons namely the respondent, Jalal Din and Ilam Din. It was claimed therein that Ilam Din had relinquished his right in it in favour of the plaintiff while Jalal Din, the real father of the applicant alienated his right in the said property to respondent for a sum of Rs.2500 on 4‑5‑1986 and executed a writing to the aforesaid effect. It was complained that one and half years before the institution of the suit, the applicant/defendant forcibly occupied the house and had declined to deliver the possession of the house to the respondent necessitating the institution of tile suit.

3. The suit was resisted. Number of legal as well as factual pleas were raised on which the learned trial Court framed as many as four issues which arc unnecessary to be recapitulated as the learned counsel for the applicant confined his argument on issue No.3 only which is as follows:

"Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property? OPP"

4. In order to substantiate their respective contentions, the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. Upon consideration of the evidence. so adduced, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the house in dispute was constructed over a piece of land which was part of `Shamlat‑Deh' which was neither transferable nor was alienable. On these premises it was held that tile suit under section 8 of the Specific Relief Act was not competent as the same could only be lodged on the basis of title. On appeal, the learned first appellate Court did not agree with the finding of the learned Court of first instance on issue No.3, and found that the respondent was owner in possession of the said house and was forcibly dispossessed by the applicant. On this conclusion the learned first appellate Court accepted the appeal and decreed the suit.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant, in support of this application contended that the house in dispute was admittedly built over a piece of land, which was part of `Shamlat‑Deh'. As such the respondent had no proprietary right in the house in dispute and was not competent to file a suit for possession under section 8 of the Specific Relief Act. No other point was urged.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant at some length, [ am not inclined to agree with him. The respondent in order to prove his case had produced P.W.1 Muzaffar Ali, P.W.2, Nazir Ahmad, P.W.3 Ilam Din and P.W.4 Jalal Din and himself as P.W.5. He also proved the execution of writing made by Jalal Din/father of the applicant in his favour. It is noteworthy to mention that Ilam Din is real uncle of the applicant while Jalal Din is his father. Jalal Din stated that the house belonged to Mahi Din; that the house in dispute was inherited by him alongwith 11am Din and respondent; that he had made the sale of his share in favour of the applicant. This witness was unfortunately subjected to cross‑examination and nothing was extracted to demolish evidential value of his testimony. To the same effect is the evidence of Ilam Din. Add to it, the applicant in his cross‑examination admitted that the house in dispute was owned by Mahi Din; that his father Jalal Din had alienated his share in favour of the respondent. The statements of Jalal Din, Ilam Din coupled with admissions made by the applicant in cross examination almost conclusively established that the house in dispute was owned by the respondent. On this material, the learned first appellate Court was completely right in coming to the conclusion that the house in dispute belonged to the respondent and was forcibly being occupied by applicant. This conclusion of fact has been arrived at by the first appellate Court after sound appraisal of evidence on record and in consonance with the provision of law. This conclusion is, therefore, not susceptible to interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court which is intended to correct the errors of jurisdiction or errors of law apparent on the face of the record or the errors in the conclusions of facts arrived at by misreading or non‑reading of evidence. No such circumstance was pointed out warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

For the reasons stated above this revision application is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

A.A./B‑36/L. Revision dismissed.