SULTAN and 13 others vs MUHAMMAD alias MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and 23
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioners' revision petition by the High Court, which had upheld the appellate judgment of the District Judge setting aside the trial court's decree in favor of the petitioners in a declaratory suit for possession. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioners established title to the suit land through an oral sale or via adverse possession as co-sharers. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to provide authentic documentary evidence or produce the Patwari to substantiate the alleged oral sale, and further held that as co-sharers recorded in Hisadari possession, their possession could not be construed as adverse. The petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit. The key principle laid down is that an oral sale unsupported by revenue records or necessary witnesses cannot establish title, and co-sharers cannot claim adverse possession against other co-sharers in the same khata.
- Can title through an oral sale be established without producing corroborative documentary evidence or the relevant revenue official?
- Whether a co-sharer recorded in Hisadari possession can claim adverse possession against other co-sharers in the same khata?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower appellate and revisional courts when based on proper appreciation of evidence?
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners. They succeeded in obtaining decree in a declaratory suit for possession before the trial Court. However, the appeal of the present respondents was accepted before the District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan vide judgment dated 23-1-1984. The petitioners' revision petition was also dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment.
2. ' The petitioners claim the title of the suit land through an oral sale and also on adverse possession but their counsel failed to show us any authentic evidence or documentary proof to have been placed on record, which can support their case for consideration of this Court. For the oral sale the petitioners produced only Gamoon P.W.1 who is also the petitioner in this case. He has stated that the land was purchased from Jamsheer and Gulsheer fathers of the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 about 60 years back and a report to this effect was lodged with the Patwari which was thumb impressed by the abovesaid vendors. This statement does not find any documentary or otherwise support because the Patwari has not been produced. It shows that there is no such document or entries available in the Revenue record.
3. As far as the adverse possession as claimed by the petitioners is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners are the co-sharers in the Khata and have been shown in the Hisadari possession, therefore, they cannot be said to be in adverse possession. As it is a matter of common sense that if the petitioners are considered to be in possession of the suit land through a sale, then there is no question of an adverse possession.
4. ' We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of the findings of the appellate as well as revisional Courts. In our considered opinion the view taken by the learned Judges of these Courts are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record as the same points were also raised before them upon which they have given the correct verdict and no ground has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioners for any interference by this Court.
5. ' The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. .