Anda di halaman 1dari 2

1989 SCMR 842

Present: Shafiur Rahman and Usman Ali Shah, JJ


AZIZ ULLAH and 11 others--Petitioners
versus
RASOOL BAKHSH and 29 others--Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.103 of 1989, decided on 29th January, 1989.
(From the judgment of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur dated 14-12-1988
passed in Civil Revision No.86 of 1975/BWP.)
Punjab Settlement Manual--
--- Para. 173--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Acquisition of share in specific
Khatas under Adhlapi agreement--Plea of--Proof--Adhlapi mutation could be attested only on
proof of two conditions; that in crucial year a well had been sunk in any of the disputed Khatas
and that land had been brought under cultivation--Concurrent findings of fact of Courts below
could not be interfered with there being no material on record to show that said conditions were
fulfilled--Petition being devoid of merit, leave to appeal was refused.
Ejaz Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry,
Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 29th January, 1989.
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The defendants in a Civil Suit seek leave to appeal against the
concurrent judgments of the three Courts with regard to their title to the disputed land. Their
contention in the civil suit was that under an Adhlapi agreement they had acquired a share in the
two Khatas belonging to the plaintiffs/respondents and the mutation had been entered and
attested in 1937 and necessary corrections in it made in 1949. It was not, according to the learned
counsel for the petitioners, open to the plaintiffs to have agitated after such a long period when
the mutation stood incorporated in the Jamabandi to challenge those and to have succeeded.
The finding of fact recorded by the Courts will be apparent from the following conclusions
drawn by the High Court in the following terms:--
"After having heard the parties and perused the record and discussed the lower Courts'
judgments the conclusion is that, firstly there was no Adhlapi agreement between the parties for
the same has not been proved in any manner whatsoever, that if it is conceded for arguments
sake that there was one, then the same agreement was not fulfilled as no well was sunk nor land
made cultivable; secondly, that there was no evidence to establish the possession of the suit land
by the petitioners/defendants to establish their case of adverse possession. On the contrary the
documents relied upon by the said party i.e. Exh.D.2 to Exh.D.7 and Exh.D.15 to Exh. D.18
itself states that the land was Banjar Qadeem, therefore, the presumption in law and fact is that
the original " owners namely plaintiffs/respondents were in possession. Thirdly, that the entries
in the impugned mutation Exh.D.3 itself gives rise to graved doubts about its validity and
genuineness and in any case the said mutation entries have not been proved or corroborated by
any evidence. Fourthly, that the limitation in the present case starts from the date when the
petitioners/defendants threatened to interfere with the ownership and possession of
respondents/plaintiffs and therefore, the suit was within time and it was rightly so held by the
concurrent judgements of the learned lower Courts.
18. It shall be pertinent to point out here that the learned counsel for the petitioners could not
show any misreading or non-reading of the evidence nor did he refer to any of the two judgments
of the learned lower Courts to point out any material irregularity or illegality committed. He
furthermore did not challenge any of the authorities relied upon by the learned Courts below to
support their findings and his contention that none of the plaintiffs had appeared is belied by the
testimony of P.W.1 plaintiff No.2. The case law cited by him is either irrelevant or fails to
support his contentions as discussed and pointed out earlier. Whereas the authorities cited by the
learned counsel for the respondents are relevant, to the point and fully support his plea that no
case is made out for interference under the revisional jurisdiction in the present case:'
The learned counsel was asked to show whether there was any material on the record to sustain a
conclusion that in 1937 a well had been sunk in either of the two Khatas and the land had been
brought under cultivation because it was only on the satisfaction of these two conditions that the
Adhlanni mutation could be attested in their favour. The learned counsel has not been able to
point out any such material. In the circumstances, no case is made out for leave to appeal and the
same is refused.
A.A./A-425/S Leave to appeal refused.