MUHAMMAD RAZA Versus ALL MOHALLAH CHOLONG HOTO RANGA, TEHSIL GAMBA, DISTRICT SKARDU
ALI BAIG, J.--- This revision petition is directed against the impugned judgments/decrees passed by the learned trial court dated 30/11/2015 and the learned Additional District Judge, Skardu dated 23/08/2017, whereby both the learned courts below have dismissed the suit of the present petitioners/ plaintiffs.
2. Briefly stated facts giving arise to the filing of the instant civil revision petition are that the present petitioners/plaintiffs brought a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the present respondents/defendants in the learned trial court claiming that suit land measuring 100 kanals fully described in the heading of the plaint situated at Mouza Gamba Skardu was in the possession of Raja Skardu namely Muhammad Shah who had gifted the disputed land to the father of the present petitioner/plaintiff No.1 in recognization of services rendered to him. Out of total 100 kanals land 77 kanals and 9 marlas land was transferred to Ahmed son of Mir resident of Chunda father of the petitioner/plaintiff No.1 vide mutation No.1010 attested on 20-12-1988 and remaining land remained in possession of father of the petitioner/plaintiff No.1 without mutation. It is further averted in the plaint that 62 kanals disputed land under khasra No.2614/5 was gifted by father of the petitioner/plaintiff No.1 to one Ghulam Hussain son of Shukoor resident of Khaplu vide registered gift deed No. 11/91 dated 7.3.1991.-Later on the above named person gifted 16 kanals land to the petitioners Nos. 3 and 16 kanals land was gifted to the petitioner/plaintiff No. 4 through registered gift deed No. 03/92 dated 02-01-1992 out of 62 kanals land. Ghulam Hussain son of Shakoor had sold out remaining 30 kanals land to the petitioner/ plaintiff No.2. Respondent/Defendant No.1-belong to village Hoto Rangah whereas disputed property is situated at Gamba Skardu and respondents set No.1 have no right over disputed property, but they are bent upon to take the possession of suit land, therefore, the respondents/defendants may permanently be restrained from interfering in the suit land.
3. The present respondents/defendants set No.1 contested the suit by way of filing of their written statement in the trial court raising certain legal objections and claiming that the disputed land is pasture of present respondents/defendants set No.1 which is not owned by Raja of Skardu. The present respondents Nos.2 and 3 also contested the suit by filing their joint written statement in the trial court pleading/asserting therein that the disputed land is Khalisa Sarkar and owned by the respondents-Nos.2 and 3 and mutation No.1010 is forged and fabricated document.
4. On the basis of divergent pleadings of parties, the learned trial court framed as many as 21 issues including issue of relief.
5. After framing of issues the learned trial court directed the parties to adduce their evidence as they wished to adduce. Accordingly, the parties produced their oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims.
6. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial court vide judgment/decree dated 30/11/2015 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/present petitioners. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied from the judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court the present petitioners had filed civil first appeal in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Skardu, which was also dismissed by the learned 1st Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment/decree dated 23/08/2017, hence this revision petition.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the impugned judgments/decrees passed by both the courts below are contrary to law and facts on the record of the case, as such the impugned judgments/decrees passed by both the lower courts are not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the suit land was owned by Raja of Skardu who has gifted the same to father of the present petitioner/plaintiff No.1 and the suit land has already been alienated in the name of father of petitioner No.1 through Iqrar Nama/deed dated 14/12/86 Exh.P/3, but the learned trial court and 1st Appellate Court have failed to consider this fact and have wrongly dismissed the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the suit land has been transferred in the name of father of the present petitioner No.1 vide mutation No. 1010 attested on 20/12/1988, thus, the petitioners are bona fide owners of suit land, therefore, by accepting this revision petition the impugned judgments/decrees passed by both the lower courts may be set aside and suit may be decreed in favour of the present petitioners/plaintiffs.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned standing Advocate General controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and defended the impugned judgments/decrees passed by the learned courts below by contending that suit land is Khalisa Sarkar and old pasture of the present respondent No.1 and the petitioners/plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their claim by adducing cogent and reliable oral and documentary evidence, therefore, both the learned courts have rightly dismissed the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs by recording their well reasoned concurrent findings which may be maintained. The learned standing AG and counsel for the respondent No.1 further argued that the father of the present petitioner/plaintiff No.1 has got prepared/attested forged mutation bearing No.1010 and original copy of said mutation is not available in Tehsil Office Gamba.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
10. It is the case/claim of the 'petitioners/plaintiffs that the disputed land situated at Gamba Skardu was in the possession of Raja Muhammad Shah Raja of Skardu and he was owner of suit land who has gifted the suit land measuring 100 kanals in favour of father of the present petitioner/plaintiff No.1 namely Ahmed resident of Chunda Skardu, in recognition of his services rendered by him through agreement/Iqrar Nama dated 14/12/1986 Exh.P/3. On the basis of aforesaid agreement the suit land was allegedly transferred in the name of father of the petitioner/plaintiff No.1 namely Ahmed son of Mir vide mutation No.1010 attested on 20/12/1988.
11. In order to prove their claim although petitioners/plaintiffs have examined oral witnesses who have deposed that the suit land was owned by the Raja Muhammad Shah of Skardu, who has gifted the suit land to father of the petitioner/plaintiff No.1 in reorganization of his service which contradicts with the revenue record. Admittedly, Skardu is settled area and to prove ownership of property revenue record i-e Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi are essential/material, but except production of mutation No.1010, the plaintiffs/petitioners have failed to produce any valid revenue record to prove their claim. Even mutation No.1010 allegedly attested on 20/12/1988, seems to be forged as admittedly record of said mutation is neither available in the office of Tehsildar Gamba nor in the record room of Deputy Commissioner Skardu as evident from the report of Naib Tehsildar Gamba dated 11/10/2010 Exh.D-1/6 and the plaintiffs/petitioners have also failed to Halqa Patwari to get authenticate the aforesaid mutation No. 1010. Even otherwise, it is settled law that only mutation cannot confer title of any property. Thus, the petitioners/plaintiffs have failed to prove their claim by adducing reliable and convincing evidence in the learned trial court.
12. Whereas the present respondents have relied on the revenue record/documents Exh.D/5, D-1/6 and D-1/7 to rebut the claim of the plaintiffs. The petitioners through the aforesaid documents have successfully proved that there is no existence of mutation No.1010 in revenue record. The suit land is Khalisa Sarkar and government/ competent authority has not allotted the same to the either party.
13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at quite some length and evaluating the evidence produced by the parties I am of the considered view that both the learned courts below have rightly dismissed the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs vide concurrent findings and concurrent findings of both the learned courts below are neither unwarranted nor unjustified in the circumstances.
14. For what has been discussed above, I have come to the conclusion that both the learned courts below have not committed any material irregularity or illegality while recording concurrent findings warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, this revision petition being bereft of merits is hereby dismissed and impugned judgment/decree dated 23-8-2017 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is maintained. Parties to bear their respective costs. File.
ZC/165/GB Revision dismissed.