INAYAT KHAN Versus SAZAN

ORDER

1. G. SAFDAR SHAH, J ‑The dispute in this case relates to a piece of agricultural land situate in Tehsil Behrain, District Swat. Prior to the present round of litigation between he parties herein, the petitioner had filed suit against the respondent under Riwaj claiming therein that he was the owner of the suit land. Vide his judgment, dated 25‑5‑1974, however, the Tehsildar, who tried the said suit non‑suited the petitioner on the ground that the respondent herein had purchased the land vide sale deed (Exh. D. W. 1/2j, dated 4‑9‑1943. This order was challenged by the petitioner before every available forum, and when he did not succeed, he finally filed a writ petition in the Peshawar High Court, but the same was dismissed in limine on 13‑1‑1976. Against the order of the High Court, he came up to this Court for special leave to appeal, but his petition was dismissed, vide order dated 1‑6‑1976.

2. It seems that the petitioner was still dissatisfied, consequently he instituted a fresh suit against the respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, Swat, for declaration that he was the owner in possession of the suit land in respect of which, however, the respondent herein had no interest whatever. Alternatively, he prayed for declaration that if it is found that he had sold the suit land to the respondent then he had to, become the owner of it by adverse possession owing to the afflux of time.

3. The respondent contested the suit, and the learned trial Judge dismissed the same on the ground that it was barred by res judicata. His appeal against the said judgment having failed before the District Judge, Swat, the petitioner went to the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, but the same was dismissed vide the impugned judgment in which the concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below to the effect that the suit was barred by res judicata was upheld.

4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied' that upon the facts mentioned hereinabove, no exception can be taken to the judgment of the High Court. The learned counsel conceded before us that in both the suits filed by the petitioner, the subject matter was the same, as also that he had claimed therein to be the owner of the suit land. In this view of the matter, the subsequent suit filed by him was clearly barred by res judicata, and therefore, was rightly dismissed by the Courts below, as well as the High Court.

5. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.

6. Petition dismissed.