' With the concurrence of the parties and their learned counsel this revision petition is being treated as an admitted case.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this civil revision are that petitioner filed a suit against the respondents for declaration that he being in possession of the disputed house, is entitled to its proprietary rights, respondent No,3 has got no concern whatsoever with the same and that conveyance deed executed by respondent No,2 regarding the suit property on 18-1-1997, in favour of respondent No,3 is against facts, collusive, based on fraud, void and ineffective on the rights of the petitioner.
3. The suit was contested by the respondents. After framing issues and recording evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment, dated 8-5-2001 held that it was within the domain of Municipal. Authority to adjudge eligibility and entitlement for the grant of proprietary rights but since petitioner's application for rectification of survey list was pending before Municipal Authority, issuance of conveyance deed in favour of respondent No,3 without deciding the aforesaid application was illegal, mala fide and ineffective on the rights of the petitioner. It was further held that Administrator Municipal Committee (respondent No,2), would determine the eligibility of the parties for the grant of proprietary rights in the disputed property after deciding the petitioner's aforesaid application. Petitioner's suit was accordingly decreed partly to the extent of declaring the conveyance deed in favour of respondent No,2, as illegal and ineffective.
4. Before proceeding further with this judgment, it is necessary to point out that Rao Muhammad Irshad (respondent No,3) had also filed a suit against the petitioner under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for restoration of possession of the disputed property. The petitioner's declaratory suit was consolidated with the aforesaid suit by the trial Court and both the cases were disposed of vide consolidated judgment, whereby petitioner's suit was partly decreed as aforesaid and suit of respondent No,3 under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act was dismissed.
5. The petitioner did not assail the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court nor filed any cross-objection. However, respondent No,3 assailed the aforesaid consolidated judgment and the decree by way of appeal and civil revision which were both accepted by the District Judge, Khanewal on 10-5-2002 vide consolidated judgment. Decree of the trial Court was set aside, declaratory suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed while the suit instituted by respondent No,3 under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act was decreed.
6. In this civil revision the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court whereby appeal of respondent No,3 was accepted and petitioner's suit was dismissed.
7. As consolidated trial was held, Issues Nos.1 to 7 related to the suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act while Issue No,7-A was with regard to the petitioner's declaratory suit. The findings of Courts below on the said issue only (Issue No,7-A) are relevant in this civil revision.
8. While arguing this civil revision, learned counsel for the petitioner had also addressed arguments on the findings of the lower Courts on Issues Nos.2 to 7 which were not relevant, hence, the said arguments have not been mentioned in this judgment, anyhow, they are mentioned in the grounds of civil revision.
(a) It was argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that learned Appellate Court did not record any logical basis in differing with well-reasoned findings of the trial Court and that finding of the learned Appellate Court on issue No,7-A is without any foundation;
(b) that the learned Appellate Court did not take into consideration that conveyance deed issued by respondent No,2 in favour of respondent No,3 was hit by the principle of lis pendens. Reference was made in this behalf to Abdus Saeed Khan and 2 others v. Basharat Ali and .13 others PLD 1995 Lah. 255 and;
(c) that the Appellate Court had acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.
9. Civil revision is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for respondents. Arguments heard.
Revision petition and its Annexures perused.
10. Petitioner's claim that he being in possession of the disputed property is entitled to its proprietary right and that respondent No,3 has got no concern with it and that entry in the survey list regarding the said property in favour of respondent No,3 is illegal, was not accepted by the trial Court. It was rather held by the trial Court that the function of granting proprietary rights and determining the eligibility for the grant of such rights falls within the exclusive domain of Municipal Authority. Petitioner's claim was partly decreed only to the extent of declaring the conveyance deed as illegal with the direction that respondent No,2 will determine the eligibility of the parties after deciding the petitioner's application.
11. As stated earlier, the petitioner neither assailed the aforesaid findings of the trial Court in appeal nor filed any cross-objection against those findings, which implies that the same were admitted by him.
12. Reason for differing with the finding of the trial Court was that during appeal respondent No,3 had produced in additional evidence Exh.D.25 according to which it was abundantly clear that the aforesaid application of the petitioner was decided by the Administrator, Municipal Committee vide his order, dated 5-1-1997, before the issuance of the conveyance deed in question.
13. Said order of the Administrator, Municipal Committee (respondent No,2) was not assailed by the petitioner in any higher forum. Hence, in view of the aforesaid additional evidence, the sole ground, which was the only basis for declaring the, conveyance deed as illegal, was established as incorrect, therefore, finding of the trial Court based on the said ground was also against fact and record and was thus, liable to be set aside. In the said circumstances, when the declaratory suit which was decreed by the trial Court only to the extent of declaring the conveyance deed as illegal, was bound to fail. With the exception of finding regarding Conveyance Deed, the Appellate Court had not differed with the findings and observations of trial Court on Issue No,7-A.
14. From the additional evidence it was proved that eligibility of parties for the grant of proprietary rights already stood determined by the Municipal Authority; therefore, the petitioner had virtually no case.
15. Contention of petitioner's counsel that conveyance deed was executed by respondent No,2 in favour of respondent No,3 during the pendency of suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, therefore, it was hit by principle of lis pendens is misconceived because said suit was for restoration of possession which did not involve the question of title of any party.
16. In a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, alienation of suit property during pendency of the suit is hit by doctrine of lis pendens because Specific Relief Act ordains that not only parties to the agreement but their successors are also bound by it. There was no agreement between the petitioner and Municipal Committee regarding the disputed property hence, provisions of section 52 of Transfer of Property Act were not attracted. The authority referred by petitioner's counsel relates to a suit for specific performance of an agreement, hence it is not applicable.
17. I may be excused for repeating that principle of lis pendens is not involved in a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act where question of right or title or any party is not involved, hence, transfer of disputed property by respondent No,2 during pendency of said suit in which the said respondent was not even party, was not in violation of section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. Even otherwise under section 52 aforesaid transfer of immovable property in a suit to which any right is directly or specifically claimed, is not completely prohibited but the transferee or assignee acquires right thereto or interest therein subject to the judgment or order of the Court passed in the suit. In the present case, suit of respondent No,3 was decreed.
18. Adverting to the last argument of the learned counsel it may be observed that words "illegally" or "with material irregularity" have reference to material defects of procedure and not to errors of law or fact after the formalities which the law prescribes have been complied with.
19. Petitioner's counsel could not point out breach of any provision of law or commission of any error of procedure by the learned Appellate Court.
20. In view of the above discussion, this civil revision being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.