' Since Civil Revision No.307 of 2000 and Civil Revision No.308 of 2000 relate to the same subject matter betWeen the same parties, therefore, through this single judgment both these civil revisions are decided.
2. Brief facts in these civil revisions are that suit for declaration was filed that the plaintiff is owner in possession of plot No.54 situated in Block No.4 Jauharabad District Khushab and the defendant No.2 has got no right to interfere into the possession of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 is under the duty of law to implement the transfer of property in the name of plaintiff. Plot No.54 was allotted to the defendant No.2 and plot No.41 was allotted to the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff and they were both real brothers. In view of their private compromise the entire expenses for the construction were borne by the wife of defendant No. 2 on plot No.41 and on plot No.54 the entire expenses were borne by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff and it was decided by both the brothers that this exchange will he incorporated in the field report and the plaintiff is in possession of plot No.54. Written statement was filed by the Province of Punjab raising seven preliminary objections on the point of law. In paragraph 1 of the written statement they admitted that the disputed plot was given to Hafiz Khalil Ahmad Magistrate, Jhang. Agreement between the allottee and the department took place on 20-6-1972 and the plot was transferred to him vide order, dated 16-7-1976 on the basis of agreement. Plaintiff had no right or interest in the said plot. Six issues were formulated and the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree, dated 2-1-1999. On appeal the learned Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21-6-1999. This judgment and decree is assailed by the Province of Punjab while respondent No.2 did not challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court.
3., Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the plot No.41 was allotted to Ashiq Rasul and plot No.54 was allotted to Hafiz Khalil Ahmad. Ashiq Rasul has died and his legal heirs respondents No.2 to 7 are the plaintiffs. Both the allottees are real brothers. An agreement to sell was reduced, into writing between the department and the aforesaid allottees, dated 19-8-1972, map was sanctioned on 15-12-1973 after taking permission from the Town Commiitee and construction was'made. Now both the brothers have exchanged their plots and they have come for incorporation of the entries through a civil suit, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner is in no way aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, as the plots stand transferred in the names of plaintiff's father and the respondent and both have through private compromise made an exchange and the department is bound toincorporate the exchange in the names of the plaintiff and the defendant.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of judgment passed by the learned trial Court issue No.1 in respect of jurisdiction and issue No.2 the prayer of implementation of alleged agreement were decided in favour of the contesting defendants and the learned trial Court observed that any decree for declaration on the basis of any agreement cannot be granted to the plaintiff and suit in the present form is not proper. While deciding issue No.5 the learned trial Court observed that defendant No.2' against whom the plaintiff claims his title is not the owner of disputed plot and decree, dated 31-5-1997 passed in favour of defendant No 2 has not been entered with the Housing Department hence so far defendant No.2 is not owner of the disputed plot because mere decree does not create any right until and unless it is given effect according to law. Learned Appellate Court reversed the findings of the learned trial Court on issues No.!, 3 and 4 and observed that statement of P.W.S. And admission of D.W.S. Has been ignored by the learned trial Court. Defendant No.2 has given a consenting written statement. Record shows that disputed plot was transferred by defendant No.1 in favour of Hafiz Khalil Ahmad and subsequently on the basis of agreement Hafiz Khalil Ahmad had carried out exchange of plot No.54 with plot No.41. In these circumstances defendant No.1 was not justified by not to record the legal heirs of Ashiq Rasul as owners in possession of the premises in dispute. On issue No.5 the learned Appellate Court observed that Exh.P-1 shows that Khalid Mehmood appeared before Mian Muhammad Yousaf Saqi, learned Civil Judge, Jauharabad and got transferred plot No.54 in favour of Hafiz Khalil Ahmad. Exh.D-1 the lease purchase agreement and Exh.D-2 the copy of agreement and Exh.D-3-the allotment order, this much evidence is sufficient to prove that originally plot No.54 was allotted in the name of Hafiz Khalil Ahmad and he paid the price for the same and during those days real brother of Hafiz Khalil Ahmad was allotted plot No.41.
Hafiz Khalil Ahmad and Ashiq Rasul carried out exchange and raised construction on plots Nos.41 and 54. Written statement of defendant No.2 is also available on the record. When this was a state of affair, certainly appropriate way for the department was to have incorporated the appellant- plaintiff as owner/allottee of plot No.54 block No.4 Jauharabad so findings of learned trial Court on issue No.5 are not in accordance with law and the same are accordingly reversed.
6. Perusal of the evidence shaws that plaintiff produced P. Ws. 1 to 4 in support of his claim and D.W.1 appeared on behalf of the Province of Punjab. P.W.3 Hafiz Khalil Ahmad appeared and stated on oath that he was allotted plot No.54 and plot No.41 was allotted to his brother Ashiq Rasul. The expenses for the construction of plot No.41 were borneby his wife and the expenses for the construction of plot No.54 were borne by his brother and according to the family settlement the plaintiff is owner of plot No.54. P.W.4 is Ashiq Rasul, he supported the plaint, D.W.1 is Zafar Hayat Head Clerk, he stated on oath that plot No.41 was allotted to Ashiq Rasul and he is the owner of plot, Ashiq Rasul has died and his legal heirs are in possession as owners although no mutation of inheritance has taken place and the allotment order is Exh.D-1, agreement to lease Exh.D-2 and the application of legal heirs Exh. D-3. D.W.2 stated that pot No.54 in block No.4 measuring 10 Marlas was allotted to the defendant No.2 in the year, 1969 and later on this plot was transferred to Khalid Mehmood. Copy of agreement Exh.D-1, agreement, Exh. D-2 and copy of transfer order is Exh.D-3. In cross-examination he admitted that if the legal heirs of Ashiq Rasul and Khalid Mehmood defendant approach the department for transfer the department will have no objection as entire Jauharabad is in the ownership of Housing Department. P.W.2 Khalid Mehmood admitted that house No.54 has been decreed in favour of Hafiz Khalil Ahmad through consent decree and he has no relationship with plc,t No.54 and there is no dispute existing between them.
7. Keeping in view the entire oral as well as documentary evidence no substance exists to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court. Instant civil revisions are dismissed. No order as to costs.