' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- Both these appeals, by leave of the Court, are directed against judgment, dated 2-3-1999, passed by a learned Single Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No,262 of 1996.
2. The respondents Nos.2 to 10 instituted, before the Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha, a suit for declaration that they were the owners of the suit property (Tharas) measuring 1 Marla and 256 square feet which was an integral part of their residential house/Property No,1-S-1 situated in Block No,3, Sargodha. It was further stated that the order dated 27-12-1988 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Sargodha, directing them to make payment of sale price of the Tharas was illegal and ineffective qua their rights. The trial Court decreed the civil suit of the respondents Nos.2 to 10 against respondent No,1, by judgment and decree dated 24-1-1994. The respondent No,1 preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Sargodha. The appellants (Civil Appeal No,2042 of 2001) made an application for impleading them as party in appeal. The Additional District Judge, Sargodha, by judgment and decree, dated 7-1-1996, accepted the appeal of respondent No,1 (Provincial Government) whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside and the civil suit of respondents Nos.2 to 10 was dismissed. Therefore, the respondents Nos.2 to 10 filed Civil Revision No,262 of 1996 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The appellants also filed an application in the civil revision for impleading them as party. The civil revision of the respondents Nos.2 to 10 was allowed by a learned Single Judge in Chambers, by the impugned judgment, dated 2-3-1999. Hence these appeals, one by the appellants and the other by, respondent No,1, with leave of the Court.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the suit property, in the nature of Tharas, was in continuous possession of the appellants since 1960 over which they had constructed shops. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos.2 to 10 was transferred, by the Rehabilitation Authorities a residential house, Property No,1-S- measuring 3 Marlas and 34 square feet built on Khasras Nos.346/52, 55 and 56 of Chak Shumali, Tehsil and District Sargodha, and had no right or title qua the suit property falling in Khasras. Nos.53, 54 and 58 measuring 1 Marla and 256 square feet. The suit property belonged to the Provincial Government. The same had never been treated to be an evacuee property so as to form a part of the compensation pool. It was next contended that the appellants being in possession of the suit property had a right to its transfer from respondent No,1 in accordance with the Government scheme. It was lastly contended that the appellants had moved C.M. No,451 of 1996 in Civil Revision No,262 of 1996 under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. For impleading them as respondents which was not decided before the disposal of the civil revision.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 (also appellant in connected Civil Appeal No,2043 of 2001) argued that the suit property being Tharas measuring 1 Marla and 256 square feet was a State property of considerable value belonging to the Provincial Government. Therefore, the same could not be declared to be an integral part of the residential house of respondents Nos.2 to 10, which, being an evacuee property, had been transferred to their predecessor-in-interest. It was next contended that the respondents Nos.2 to 10 had themselves made an application to respondent No,1 for the purchase of the suit property. They were, therefore, estopped to claim its ownership. It was further submitted that the suit property had never been transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos.2 to 10 by the Rehabilitation Department or by or on behalf of the Provincial Government. It was next contended that as regards the letter dated 29-12- 1996 purported to have been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha, the same as not produced in evidence before the trial Court. The proprietary rights could not be claimed by respondents Nos.2 to 10 on the basis thereof. The learned counsel relied on the cases of Madan Gopal and 4 others v. Maran Bepari and 3 others PLD 1969 SC 617 and Allah Din v. Habib PLD 1982 SC 465, in support of his contention that the finding of fact reached by the First Appellate Court was to prevail over the one recorded by the trial Court which was not to be interfered with by the High Court in second appeal.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 to 10 contended that the appellants had already accepted the respondents Nos.2 to 10 to be their landlords by executing necessary rent deeds during the years 1960 to 1968. The respondents Nos.2 to 10 had earlier instituted proceedings for ejectment of the appellants. The matter of ejectment of the appellants had already attained finality as their S.A.O. No,199 of 1999 was dismissed by the Lahore High Court on 17-8-1999. The mutations in respect of the suit property were also sanctioned in favor of the respondents which were maintained by the District Officer (Revenue)/District Collector, Sargodha, by order dated 25-10-2002. An official of respondent No,1 appeared before the High Court and produced the record including Letter No,1209-CA/UCC dated 29-12-1996 duly signed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha, to the effect that the Property No,1-S-1 comprised a double storey residential building and that the Tharas built on Khasras Nos.53, 54 and 58 were contiguous cost of which already stood paid by the non-Muslim evacuee. The learned counsel also referred to the building plan approved by the Municipal Committee in favor of the non-Muslim evacuee Dr. Goband Ram, a Medical Practitioner, for construction of building including the suit property. It was lastly submitted that as per record of the respondent No,1, the sale price of Tharas had been paid by the evacuee as back as in the year 1926.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the available record. There was no denial of the fact that the suit property being Tharas was contiguous to the main residential building of the respondents Nos.2 to 10. According to the Government policy, the Tharas are to go with shops or houses which are located behind the Tharas. Reference may be made to the case Muhammad Ashraf v. Dost Muhammad and others 1981 SCM R 383. The letter dated 29-12-1996 of the Deputy Commissioner was produced by Ghulam Shabbir, Assistant Deputy Commissioner's office as a departmental representative, from the official custody along with the other record pertaining to the suit property. There was nothing on record to show that the said document was forged and fabricated one. According to record produced by the said official before the High Court, a sum of Rs,918 was shown to have been paid by the evacuee owner on 9-2-1926 whereupon the suit property stood, transferred in his name. The appellants have already lost their case in ejectment proceedings instituted by the respondents. Nos.2 to 10. The S.A.O. No,199 of 1999 of the appellants was dismissed by the High Court on 17-8-1999 and they were adjudged to be the tenants of the respondents Nos.2 to 10. The suit property having been sold to the non-Muslim evacuee upon payment of the sale price had become an integral part of the main building being its frontage. The same was transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos.2 to
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has done substantial justice between the parties in restoring the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, dated 24-1-1994 whereby the suit of the respondents Nos.2 to 10 was decreed. The letter, dated 29-12-1996 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha also clearly showed that the suit property stood transferred in favor of the non-Muslim evacuee. Moreover, Civil Appeal No,2043 of 2001 is barred by 52 days for which no plausible explanation has been given by on behalf of the appellants. In our view, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so,as to warrant interference by this Court.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals which are dismissed.
However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.