MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and others vs MUHAMMAD MISKEEN
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed their revision petition and confirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts against them. The dispute arose over a plot of land allegedly encroached upon by the respondent, a contiguous owner. The petitioners originally filed a suit for possession, which went through various stages of appeals, remands, and revisions. The lower appellate court and the High Court ultimately found that the respondent was the owner in possession of the suit land by virtue of a valid purchase and continuous possession, and that the petitioners failed to prove their possession within the statutory period of twelve years. The Supreme Court considered whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction. Holding that the findings were based on a thorough adjudication of facts and supported by evidence, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, establishing that concurrent findings of fact on possession and ownership will not be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or contrary to law.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding possession and ownership can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction?
- Is a plaintiff required to prove possession of the disputed land within twelve years of filing the suit for possession?
- Does a continuous entry in the Khasra Girdawari suffice to prove long-standing physical possession?
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, dated 25-1-1989, whereby, revision petition filed by them was dismissed and findings of the Courts below were confirmed.
2. ' The petitioners were owners of land comprising Khasra No,772, measuring 199 kanals 2 marlas and the respondent being a contiguous owner to the said Khasra, allegedly encroached a portion of the suit land. The petitioners filed an application for demarcation before the Revenue Officer, who found that the respondent had encroached an area of 39 kanals 1 marla which was shown as Khasra No,772/1. The petitioners filed a suit for possession of Khasra No,772/1 measuring 39 kanals 1 marlas. The respondent contested the suit. Resultantly, the suit of the petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 11-6-1973. On appeal of the petitioners before the Addl. District Judge, Hazara, the case was remanded to the lower Court for retrial according to the direction of the District Court, vide order dated 26-7-1975. The learned trial Judge after framing issues obtained evidence adduced by the parties, vide his order dated 13-3-1979, decreed the suit for possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners, on payment of Rs,7,241 as costs of improvements.
3. ' The respondent being aggrieved filed appeal before the Addl. District Judge, Haripur, who vide his order dated 26-4-1980, dismissed the appeal. Against the said order the respondent filed civil revision before the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad. A learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the revision, vide his judgment dated 4-12-1982 accepted the revision, set aside the remand order of the Addl. District Judge dated 26-7-1975 and that subsequent order of the Civil Judge dated 13-3-1979 and sent back the case to the Addl. District Judge, Haripur, with direction that Appeal No,149/13 of 1973 should be decided afresh and according to law.
4. ' The learned Addl. District Judge in the remand appeal held that at the time of consolidation proceedings Muhammad Maskeen respondent was full-fledged owner of the suit land. He was not made a party to the consolidation proceedings, therefore, additionally these proceedings were not only illegal, but also against the golden principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard was also violated in his case. The petitioners filed Civil Revision No,203 of 1983 in the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad which found no merit and dismissed vide impugned judgment.
5. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record and findings of the Courts below in the light of the contention raised by the learned counsel. The record of the case will show that the respondent is recorded in possession as owner (Hisadar) of the suit land which he had purchased by way of sale for consideration of Rs,800. This fact is confirmed by Muhammad Anwar Khan D.W.3 who had stated in statement that he alongwith others had sold the land in dispute to the respondent and physical possession of which was delivered to him on the day of sale. Khasra Girdawari from Rabi 1958 to Kharif 1972 produced by Abdul Qayyum Halqa Patwari (D.W.2) also confirms continuous possession of the respondent of the suit land. On the other hand the petitioners have failed to prove their claim that they were in possession of the suit land within 12 years from the date of filing of the suit of the disputed land. All the .Controversial points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are relating to the question of fact which the learned Courts below have thoroughly adjudicated upon and arrived at concurrent findings in favour of the respondent. It is, therefore, obvious that all the decisions including that of the High Court are against the petitioners. Thus, in our opinion, the view taken by the learned High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, is perfectly in accordance with law and calls for no interference.
6. ' The result is that this petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed, leave to appeal is refused.