Law:

Section:

Respondents Nos.1 to 4 filed a suit for declaration against the petitioners claiming that they are owners in possession to the extent of share in the suit land measuring 182 Kanals, 14 Marlas under an Adhlapi agreement dated 10‑12‑1949 executed in their favour by Haji Rab Nawaz, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners. The plaintiffs further contended that they are in continuous possession of the said land ever since the execution of the Adhlapi agreement.   The suit was resisted on the grounds that the suit was not within time; that the plaintiffs cannot claim any title under the unregistered Adhlapi agreement even if one was proved to have been made; that the plaintiffs were estopped to file the suit and that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiffs did not sue for specific performance. Upon merits, the execution of the Adhlapi agreement was denied. It was also controverted that the plaintiffs had fulfilled the conditions of the Adhlapi.   The learned trial Court, on the basis of the evidence produced before it, found that the Adhalpi agreement was executed in favour of the plaintiffs and that its conditions were fulfilled. Reliance was placed upon the statements of as many as 7 P.Ws. including Muhammad Asghar P.W.2 (who is a son of Haji Rab Nawaz, the executor of the Adhlapi agreement). The plaintiffs were also found to be in possession of the suit land. Relying further upon the Adhlapi agreement Exh.P.1 and the record of rights relating to the year. 1946‑47 (Exh.P‑3), it was held that although the land was shown as Banjar Qadeem in the said document, it was made culturable as shown in Exh.P.5 wherein the plaintiffs were entered in the cultivation column. It was also noticed that in the subsequent Jamabandis, the suit land was shown to be cultivated by the plaintiffs and has become Chahi and Nehri. Finding that the suit was not barred by time and that the suit was maintainable, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30‑5‑1989.   The petitioners preferred an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 8‑10‑1990. The learned appellate Court reappraised…