IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Civil Revision Appln. : Ghulam Rasool Khoso vs.
No. S- 46 of 2016 Hairo Bakhrani &Others
For the Applicant : Mr. Imdad Ali Mashori, Advocate
For the official
Respondents : Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Addl. A.G.
Date of hearing : 21.02.2022.
Date of announcement : 21.02.2022.
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. (1) Deferred. (2&3) The applicant had filed a suit for declaration in respect of immovable property before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kandhkot and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 14th April, 2016. The appeal filed there against also failed, hence, this revision.
2. The learned trial Court rested its conclusion on the following findings:
“The plaintiff admitted in his cross examination that he did not produce the Khata showing as to how Haji Gahno Khan had acquired the suit land. He further admitted that he did not exhibit statements of the witnesses on the basis of which the “Khata” was made in his favor in Deh Form-VII. He denied that the suit land was belonging to one Dato Mal. The plaintiff also denied that theowner Dato Mal had sold out the suit land to Ali Murad and Murad Ali. He also denied in the cross examination that Murad Ali had sold out his share to his wife.
The witness of the plaintiff namely Zahoor Ahmed also deposed that the plaintiff is owner of first portion from survey No.434 measuring 4-00 acres. In the cross examination, he stated that the second portion of the suit land was purchased by one Ali Murad Bakhrani about 1 and half years back. He stated that he was not present at the time when the plaintiff purchased the suit land. He further stated that he is cousin of the plaintiff. The witness of the plaintiff denied that the”Khata” kept in favour of the plaintiff was false.
In rebuttal, the defendant No.2 denied in his evidence the ownership of the plaintiff.
The burden to prove the above issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed him to be owner of the suit land, for which he exhibited Deh Form-VII in his evidence. This entry bearing No.166 dated 5.4.1983 was also exhibited by the Mukhtiarkar in his statement. I have very carefully perused Deh Form-VII exhibited by the plaintiff. No other document exhibited by the plaintiff to prove his ownership. The entry No.166 speaks that one Gahno Khan son of Abdullah Khan Khoso had sold out 50% share of the suit property to the plaintiff against sale consideration of Rs.27000/-. This entry was kept in Revenue Record on the basis of statements of the witnesses. It is admitted position that the plaintiff failed to produce the statements of the witnesses on the basis of which Khata was changed in his favour. The plaintiff contradicted the sale consideration of suit land in his cross examination. Admittedly, the witnesses of sale transaction were not produced in this Court. It is noticeable here that it was the contention of the plaintiff that he had purchased 50% of the total area of survey No.434, but the entry No.166 did not show as to where is the remaining 4.00 acres from the above survey number. It is also surprising to note here that the plaintiff exhibited Deh Form-VII, while as per Revenue Department procedure, an entry regarding the sale of agricultural land should be kept in Deh Form VII-B. This Court is also of the view that an entry in the Revenue Record does not create title in favour of any one. The Revenue entry is kept in favour of any person only for the purpose of getting taxes due on the agricultural land. It is also admitted position that the plaintiff did not produce the seller of the suit land as his witness. The plaintiff also admitted in the cross examination that he did not produce the previous record of the suit land to show that as to how the seller Gahno Khan had acquired the suit land and under what manners. It is must to mention here that the Mukhtiarkar Tangwani also did not produce the previous entries of the suit land to show as how the seller Gahno Khan had acquired the suit land and under what manner. This Court is of the view that the plaintiff failed to prove his ownership of the suit land.”
3. The learned appellate Court maintained the findings of the learned trial Court and the operative observations are reproduced herein below:
“The appellant/ plaintiff while examining himself at Ex.32 of the R&Ps of trial has deposed that he is owner of 50 paisa share out of survey No.434 of deh Ghazi, Taluka Tangwani and such mutation is entered in his name. The appellant/ plaintiff was cross examined and he stated that the suit land originally belongs to Loung Bakhrani. The appellant/ plaintiff further stated that remaining 50 paisa share in the survey No.434 belongs to Ali Murad Bakhrani and Abdullah Khoso. He (appellant/ plaintiff) denied the suggestion that he has produced forged documents in the Court. The appellant/ plaintiff has produced entry No.166 dated 05.04.1983 of village Form No.VII-B showing that Gahno Khan sold out 04 acres of the land out of survey No.434 (8-0) acres of deh Ghazi.
The Mukhtiarkar Tangwani namely, Abdul Hameed while examining himself at Ex.40 of the R&Ps has produced entry No.166 dated 05.04.1983 at Ex.40-A. The Ex.40-A shows that one Gahno Khan son of Abdullah Khoso sold out area of 04 acres as 50 paisa share out of survey No.434 (8-0) acre of deh Ghazi, Taluka Tangwani to present appellant/ plaintiff namely Ghulam Rasool. It is important to note here that there is no evidence on record either brought by the appellant/ plaintiff or Mukhtiarkar Tangwani to show as to who was actual owner of survey No.434 of deh Ghazi and moreover, the report of Micro filming officer available at page 147 of R&Ps of trial Court show that the entry No.166 dated 15.09.1983 (claimed by the appellant/ plaintiff) is not available in the computer record. In such situation the declaration of title in favour of appellant/ plaintiff cannot be granted.
For the reasons given in the preceding paragraph No.10 & 11, I am of the considered view that the appellant/ plaintiff is not lawful owner of land measuring 4-0 acres out of survey No.434 (8-0) acres of deh Ghazi, Taluka Tangwani.”
4. The learned counsel submitted that evidence has not been properly appropriated by the Courts below; hence, this revision ought to be allowed.Learned Addl. A.G. supported the impugned judgments and contended that these have been rendered in accordance with law.
5. Heard and perused. The judgments have clearly appreciated the evidence and concluded that the applicant remained unable to demonstrate any actionable claim meriting grant of the relief prayed. The original judgment as well as judgment in appeal appear to have considered the record and the law and no infirmity in respect thereof has been identified to this Court. It is settled law that in the presence of concurrent findings, coupled with preponderance of claim supported by evidence, a revisional court ought not to interfere even if another view was possible. Reappraisal of evidence was even otherwise undesirable in revisional proceedings[1].
6. It is imperative to denote that the present proceedings are revisionary and not yet another stage of appeal and that the dearth of evidence could not be transcended by recourse to revisionary jurisdiction.
7. This Court has considered the contentions of the applicant and has noted the inability to cite a single ground based upon which the jurisdiction of this Court could be exercised under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. There is no suggestion that the impugned judgments are either an exercise without jurisdiction or a failure to exercise jurisdiction or an act in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with any material irregularity. It is trite law[2] that where the fora of subordinate jurisdiction had exercised its discretion in one way and that discretion had been judicially exercised on sound principles the supervisory forum would not interfere with that discretion, unless same was contrary to law or usage having the force of law. It is the considered view of this court that no manifest illegality has been identified in the judgments impugned and further that no defect has been pointed out in so far as the exercise of jurisdiction is concerned of the subordinate fora.
8. It is the considered view of this court that the applicant has remained unable to demonstrate any infirmity with the impugned judgments, meriting interference in revision under Section 115 C.P.C, therefore, this revision is hereby dismissed.
JUDGE