IN THE COURT OF

MUHAMMAD ASIF NIAZ

RENT TRIBUNAL,TOBA TEK SINGH SPECIAL JUDGE (RENT)
-.-.-.-.-.-.Muhammad Yaseen S/o Khoshi Muhammad, Caste Arian, R/o Chak
No.327/GB, Toba Tek Singh.
vs.
1.Intikhab Alam, 2.Iftikhar Ali, 3.Javed Masih, 4.Muhammad Aslam, 5.
Liaqat Ali, 6.Imran Hameed, 7.Irfan hameed, 8.Muhammad Hanif, 9.
Muhammad Zafar, 10. Kulsoom Akhtar, 11.Mehmood Ali, 12. Nazeeran
Bibi, 13. Muhammad Zahid, 14. Fouzia Nazir, 15. Muhammad Hussain, 16.
Anwar-ul- Haq, R/o Chak No.327/GB, Toba Tek Singh
17.Province of Punjab through District Collector, Toba Tek Singh
Civil suit No.

562-1 of 2012

Date of Institution

11.09.2012

Date of Decision

14.03.2016

SUIT FOR POSSESSION THROUGH PARTATION.

ORDER:
14.03.2016
Brief facts of this case as per plaint are that plaintiff was
owner of land measuring 15-Marlas comprising square No.55, Killa No.21,
situated at Chak No.327/GB Toba Tek Singh as per Jamabandi for the year
1999-91 and he sold out land measuring 7-Marlas and land measuring 2Marlas vide mutation No. 1510 dated 20.12.2002 and mutation No.2145
dated 28.04.2007 respectively to Muhammad Arshad S/o Ghulam Nabi; that
Muhammad Arshad sold out land measuring 9-Marlas to Muhammad Hanif
and now plaintiff is owner to the extent of land measuring 6-Marlas in suit
Khata; that defendant No.1 vide mutation No.1865 dated 23.06.2005
purchased measuring 5-Marlas and vide mutation NO.1573 dated
30.03.2006 purchased land measuring 1-Kanal 10-Marlas from Abdul
Shakoor and Zaid Public School was constructed; that defendant No.1 and
2 are owner in suit Khata to the extent of 35-Marlas but they are in
possession of land measuring more that 45-Marlas including land
measuring 6-Marlas of the plaintiff; that plaintiff filed complaint under

Muhammad Yaseen Vs. Intikhab Alam

2

Illegal Dispossession Act which was disposed of; that defendant No.1 also
purchased some portion of land from legal heirs of Rehmat Ali which is
adjacent to the land of defendant No.3 of Javed Masih; that Javed Masih
filed application for cancellation of mutation No.2050 before DDOR Toba
Tek Singh and said mutation was declared as fake and frivolous vide order
dated 07.02.2007 by learned DDOR; that an appeal was filed against said
order which was accepted in Board of Revenue, Lahore vide order dated
18.08.2009; that as per order of Board of Revenue mutation No.2050 was
set aside and mutation No.2669 dated 29.01.2011 was attested in favour of
Javed Masih; that on 22.12.2009 defendant No.1 challenged order passed
by learned DDOR and learned Member of Board of Revenue in suit for
declaration before civil court wherein an application for temporary
injunction was accepted; that suit Khata is still joint between the parties and
same has not been regularly partitioned; that plaintiff is owner to the extent
of land measuring 6-Marlas and defendant No.1 and 2 are illegall occupant
on land of plaintiff; that plaintiff is also entitled to get mesne profit @
Rs.3,000/- per month from August 2006. It was finally prayed that suit of
plaintiff my kindly be decreed.
2.

On the other hand, defendants No.1,2 and 17 filed contested

written statement on various legal and factual grounds and finally prayed
for dismissal of the petition in hand. Remaining defendants were proceeded
against exparte.
3.

It is pertinent to mention here that evidence of the parties was

recorded and inadvertently issues were not framed. Out of divergent

pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated
07.01.2016.

Muhammad Yaseen Vs. Intikhab Alam

3

ISSUES.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree for possession through
partition of suit property as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get recover an amount of
Rs.3,000/- per month from August 2006 till getting possession from
the defendants? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hand? OPD
4. Whether suit in hand is liable to be dismissed under order 7 Rule 11
of CPC? OPD
5. Whether suit in hand is badly time barred and same is liable to be
dismissed? OPD
6. Relief?
4.

Parties were directed to produce their respective evidence. Plaintiff

Muhammad Yaseen appeared as PW.1 In documentary evidence plaintiff

produced copy of Fardjamabandi for the year 2010-11 as Ex.P.1, copy of
Jamabandi for the year 2010-11 as Ex.P.2, copy of appeal titled Javed
Masih Vs. Intikhab Alam etc. as Ex.P.3, site plan as Mark A and copy of
order of Member of Board of Revenue as Mark B.
5.

On the other hand, one of the defendant Intikhab Alam

appeared as DW.1 Defendants produced Tahir Nadeem and Muhammad

Akhtar as DW.2 and DW.3 respectively. In documentary evidence
defendants produced copy of Fardjamabandi for the year 2010-11 as
Ex.D.1, copy of Fardjamabandi for the year 2010-11 as Ex.D.2, copy of
order in suit titled Intikhab Alam Vs. Province of Punjab etc. as Ex.D.3.
6.

Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties heard.

Record perused. My issue wise findings are as under:ISSUE NO.1.

7.

Onus to prove this issue was placed upon the plaintiff.

Plaintiff himself appeared

plaint.

as PW.1 and reiterated his stance taken in the

Muhammad Yaseen Vs. Intikhab Alam

4

8.

On the other hand one of the defendants namely Intikhab

Alam appeared as DW.1 and fully opposed the contention of the plaintiff.
Other DWs also supported the version of the defendants.
9.

Appreciation of evidence produced by the parties as well as

perusal of the record reveals that contention of plaintiff is that defendants

No.1 and 2 are owner in suit Khata of land measuring 35-Marlas but they
are in possession of land measuring 45-Marlas including land of plaintiff
measuring 6-Marlas. On the other hand defendants No.1 and 2 contended
that they are owner to the extent of 47-Marlas and their possession is also in
accordance with their ownership. Plaintiff produced Document as Ex.P.2
which reveals that plaintiff is owner in suit Khata of land measuring 6Marlas. Now point for determination in this case is whether defendants are
in possession of land in excess of their ownership which also includes the
land measuring 6-Marlas of the plaintiff. Defendants No.1 and 2 produced
document as Ex.D1 and Ex.D.2 in order to prove their ownership. Said
documents reveals that they are owner of land measuring 2-Kanals.
Mutation No.2050 regarding land measuring 7-Marlas was also attested by
Javed Masih in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 which was cancelled but
subsequently civil suit to the extent of said 07-Marlas land was decreed in
favour of defendants No.1 & 2. Said facts reveals that defendants No.1 &2
are owner to the extent of 47 Marlas in suit khata. Said ownership of the
defendants was not disputed by the plaintiff but he contended that
defendant NO.1 & 2 are occupant over his 07-Marlas land. It is pertinent to
mention here that plaintiff specifically seeks possession of his land
measuring 07-Marlas from the defendants No.1 & 2. Local commission was
appointed in order to resolve controversy between the parties regarding
possession of defendants over suit property. Halqa Patwar submitted his
report which clearly reveals that defendants No.1 and 2 are in possession of

Muhammad Yaseen Vs. Intikhab Alam

5

land measuring 47-Marlas in suit Khata. Objection raised by the parties on

report of local commission has been separately disposed of. In nutshell it is
clear from report that defendants No.1 and 2 are owner to the extent of 47Marlas in suit Khata and they are in possession of land to the extent of their
ownership in suit Khata. Said defendants are not in possession of land in
excess of their entitlement which also reveals that land measuring 6-Marlas
of the plaintiff in suit Khata is not in possession of defendants. There is no
evidence available on record which reveals that defendants No.1 & 2 are in
possession of land of the plaintiff With these observations this issue is
hereby decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
ISSUE NO.2
10.

Onus to prove this issue was placed upon the plaintiff.

Plaintiff failed to prove issue No.1 regarding possession of defendants over

his land. Therefore, this issue is hereby decided in the light of my finding
on issue No.1 with the observation that plaintiff is not entitled to get
recover an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month from August 2016 as mesne
profit.
ISSUE NO.3
11.

Onus to prove these issues were placed upon the defendants.

No evidence has been produced in order to prove this issue, therefore, this
issue is hereby decided in negative.
ISSUE NO.4
12.

Onus to prove these issues were placed upon the defendants.

No evidence has been produced in order to prove this issue, therefore, this
issue is hereby decided in negative.
ISSUE NO.5

Muhammad Yaseen Vs. Intikhab Alam

6

13.

Onus to prove these issues were placed upon the defendants.

No evidence has been produced in order to prove this issue, therefore, this
issue is hereby decided in negative.
ORDER.
14.

In view of my finding on forgoing issues instant suit is hereby

dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be drawn
accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after its completion.
Announced:
14.03.2016.
(Muhammad Asif Niaz)
Civil Judge 1st Class
Toba Tek Singh
Certified that this order consists of Six (06) pages, which
have dictated, read, corrected and singed by me.
Dated 14.03.2016.
Civil Judge 1st Class
Toba Tek Singh

Muhammad Yaseen Vs. Intikhab Alam

7

ORDER/14.03.2016.
Present:

Learned counsel for the parties.

Final arguments has already been heard and now case was

fixed for order on objection on report of local commission.

2.

Record reveals that after hearing final arguments on behalf of

the parties Patwari Halqa was appointed as local commission in this case on
the ground that there is controversy between the parties regarding
possession of defendants over suit property. Contention of plaintiff was that
defendants are illegal occupant on their land measuring 6-Marlas while it
was contended by the defendants that they are in possession of land
measuring 47-Marlas as per their ownership. Halqa Patwari was appointed
as local commission vide order dated 13.02.2016 in order to visit suit
property and submit his report regarding possession of defendants over suit
property. Said report was submitted on 26.02.2016 and plaintiff as well as
defendants filed objections upon said report.
3.

Plaintiff raised objection upon the report of local

commission with the contention that Halqa Patwari was appointed as local
commission on the point mentioned in order dated 13.02.2016 but he failed
to submit report as per order of the court. Plaintiff raised objection that it
was contention of the defendants that they started school in the year 2006
and they were owner to the extent of 35-Marlas as per revenue record at
that time and subsequently defendants No.1 and 2 purchased property vide
mutation No.2713 dated 05.04.2012. It was further stated that above
mentioned defendants also purchased 7-Marlas as per Ex.D.3 and prima
facie ownership of defendants is 2-Kanals 12-Marlas. It is further
mentioned that it was not determined by Halqa Patwari that defendants
were in possession of suit property from which period. It was further
mentioned that possession of Javed Masih was in square No.55, Killa
No.22, but as per mutation No.2058 possession was handed over from

Muhammad Yaseen Vs. Intikhab Alam

8

square No.55, Killa No.21. It was finally prayed that report of local
commission is not clear and may kindly be set aside.
4.

On the other hand, defendants also raised objection upon the report

of local commission with the contention that report was not submitted by
concerned Halqa Patwari in clear manner and he mentioned pendency of
matter regarding mutation No.2050 before Tehsildar, but matter has been
decided by the civil court. It was also mentioned in said objection petition
that local commission wrongly mentioned that possession of Javed Masih
was in square No.55, Killa NO.22 while he handed over property to
defendants vide mutation No.2050 from square No.55, Killa No.21. It was
further stated that report has been submitted by the local commission in
connivance with the plaintiff.
5.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

6.

Perusal of record reveals that Halqa Patwari was appointed as

local commission vide order dated 13.02.2016 wherein he was directed to

submit his report on the following points:-

7.

i.

Area upon which defendants have possession in suit khewat

along with site plan and the year of their possession.

ii.

Whether there exist property land measuring 7-Marlas in suit

khewat as shown property of Javed Masih in separate in site
plan produced by the plaintiff as Mark A and who is in
possession of the same.
Perusal of report submitted by the local commission reveals

that it was determined by the local commission regarding possession of

defendants in suit khewat and site plan has also been submitted. It has also
been mentioned in said report that Javed Masih sold out 7-Marlas land to
defendants No.1 and 2. Contradictory stance of Halqa Patwari submitted in
his report can be compared with the revenue record available on the file.
There is no objection raised by either party regarding procedure conducted
by the local commission on the spot. Prima facie no illegality or irregularity

Muhammad Yaseen Vs. Intikhab Alam

9

has been committed by local commission while preparing his report.

Report of local commission will be helpful to decide matter in controversy
between the parties. With these observations objection raised by the
plaintiff as well as defendants No.1 and 2 has no force in the eye of law.
Final arguments have already been heard by the parties. Vide my separate
detailed judgment recorded in English suit of plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.

Announced:
14.03.2016.
(Muhammad Asif Niaz)
Civil Judge Ist Class,
Toba Tek Singh