IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Civil Rev. Appln. S-23 of 2019 Abdul Ghafoor
vs. P.O Sindh & Others.
For the Applicant : Mr. Abdul Qadir Abro
Advocate
For the L.Rs of respondent 5 : Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto
Advocate
Date of hearing : 14.02.2022
Date of announcement : 14.02.2022
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. Applicant had filed the suit before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Shikarpur for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of immovable property. It was contended by the applicant that his father was in possession of the respective land and had constructed thereupon and that the applicant had inherited the same. Notwithstanding the manifest absence of any title document, the suit was decreed in favour of the applicant. In appeal, vide judgment dated 15.12.2018, the learned Additional District Judge-V Shikarpur set-aside the judgment and decree on the ground that the appellant was bereft of any title with respect to suit property. Operative findings are reproduced herein below:
"I have given due considerations to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court as well as other material available/ placed on record including R&Ps of the trial Court. Perusal of the R&Ps reveals that the plaintiff/respondent No.6 produced and exhibited certified true copy of receipt of Sub Registrar No.088401 dated 25.6.1981 executed by his father Arbab Ali, certificate of UBL Bank Madeji of repayment of loan by him, application moved by him to the Banking Court Larkana for withdrawal of execution application No.53/2003, receipt of payment of Rs.30,000/- in the UBL Bank dated 7.3.2013, PS copy of certificate of Chairman Town Committee Madeji dated 20.6.1981 showing the total area of the suit property with directions, do not show that the same are of the suit property. Mere production of irrelevant documents do not show any right or title of the plaintiff/respondent No.6 over the suit property but the plaintiff/respondent No.4 in his suit claims to be exclusive owner and bonafide possessor of the suit plot since his forefather. The plaintiff/respondent No.6 has failed to produce any valid documents showing him or his father to be exclusive owner of the suit plot, therefore the learned trial Court has wrongly. decreed the suit of plaintiff/respondent No.6. It is also not proved by the plaintiff/respondent No.6 that property was owned by his father. Since there is no title documents with the plaintiff/respondent No.6 showing him or his father to be exclusive owner of the suit plot, therefore the learned 2nd Senior Civil Judge Shikarpur has wrongly decreed the suit of plaintiff/respondent No.6 on the basis of documents having no concern with the suit plot, hence the Judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court is based on non-reading and misreading the evidence hence requires interference therefore I answer point No.1 in affirmative."
2. Per applicant's counsel, the appellate court ought to have accepted the same documentation relied upon by the learned trial court in order to maintain the applicant's title. It was contended that the same had also been accepted by a bank for purposes of mortgage, hence, the view taken by the learned appellate court was erroneous.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents had supported the impugned appellate court judgment and states that it is an admitted fact that the applicant does not have any title document to the subject land. It is stated that if the rights in the land were through Goth Abad Scheme, then the applicant would have been in possession of a Sanad and an entry in relevant Form-II. It was further added that if the land was State land, then the applicant would have in the possession of Form-A and or Ijazatnama under the Colonization Act, 1925.
4. Heard and perused.
5. It is an admitted fact that the applicant does not have any title document with respect to the property, either in his name or in the name of his father, from whom he claims title. The reliance of the learned trial court upon extraneous documents did not appear to be a correct appreciation of law, while deciding title of immovable property. The learned appellate court has rightly reversed the findings and observed that no declaration of title could be merited in the absence of any manifest entitlement in such regard. This court finds no infirmity in the findings of the learned appellate court and the same are hereby maintained.
6. The judgment in appeal appears 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 reappraisal of evidence was even otherwise undesirable in revisional proceedings[1].
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 judgment is 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.
8. It is the considered view of this court that the applicant has remained unable to demonstrate any infirmity with the impugned judgment, meriting interference in revision under Section 115 C.P.C, therefore, this revision is hereby dismissed.
JUDGE