' SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.---The judgment and decree dated 15-11-2001 of the learned Civil Judge, Ist Class, Lahore, in the suit filed by the respondents in their favour, have been assailed in this appeal.
2. On 23-8-1993, the respondents filed a suit for declaration claiming exclusive title to Property No.S-77-R-8/5, also known as 5-Jail Road, Lahore. It is a Bungalow on an area measuring 6 Kanals, 11, Marlas and 215 sq. Fit. Their case was that by virtue of P.T.D. Dated 27-12-1961 (Exh.P.7), the property was transferred in favour of Muhammad Akbar, predecessorin-interest of plaintiffs respondents Nos.1 to 5 and his real brother Muhammad Ashraf-respondent No.6, the transfer price was paid through their compensation books and that of Mst. Mehr-un-Nisa, the details of which were given in para.1 of the plaint. It was further averred that Muhammad Akbar was an adopted son of Mst. Mehrun-Nisa, widow of Khan Bahadur Khurshid Muhammad, the original claimant.
Through a registered Will dated 6-2-1960 (Exh.P.8) she had transferred her share in the property in favour of Muhammad Akbar and vide order dated 3-7-1969, of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Muhammad Akbar was declared as the sole heir of Mst. Mehr-un-Nisa. On 24-6- 1993 (Exh.P.10), the respondents agreed to sell the aforesaid property in favour of one Muhammad Afzal etc. For consideration of Rs.2 crores and received an earnest money of Rs.50 lacs. On 29-6- 1993, said Muhammad Afzal, got a notice (Exh.P.11) published in daily Nawa-i-Waqt about the transaction through a Lawyer against which Muhammad Ajmal, the sole defendant in the suit, submitted written objections and claimed that he was a co-sharer in the property. Accordingly, the plaintiffs-respondents were compelled to cancel the above said agreement dated 26-7-1993 (Exh.P.12) and return the earnest money of Rs.50 lacs to Muhammad Afzal. In the backdrop of these facts, a declaration was claimed by the respondents that they are exclusive owners in possession of the disputed property with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant in the suit from interfering in the rights of the plaintiffs. In the original plaint, an amount of Rs.1 crore was also claimed as damages. It may be observed that in the amended plaint, I could not find any prayer for award of damages.
3. During the pendency of the suit, the sole defendant, Muhammad Ajmal, died. His son and a daughter, the two appellants, herein and one Mst. Riffat Ashraf were impleaded to the suit.
4. All the three defendants contested the suit. The appellants and defendant No.3 filed separate written statements. In the written statement filed by the appellants, it was asserted that the suit was based on void documents, P.T.D. Was obtained by the respondents through fraud and concealment and the will statedly made by Mehr-un-Nisa in favour of Muhammad Akbar, was fabricated document. It was averred that the disputed property was allotted in favour of Khurshid Muhammad, who has been in possession thereof and on his death it devolved upon Sardar Muhammad his real brother (grandfather of the appellants ) and Mst. Mehr-un-Nisa, his widow. It was further asserted that the plaintiffs-respondents were not in actual physical possession of the disputed property.
5. Necessary issues were framed and the suit was tried. In support of their case, the attorney of the plaintiffs was examined as P.W.1 while documents Exhs.P.1 to 12 were placed on the record. The appellants produced only oral evidence. Apart from Mst. Najma Ajmal, appellant No.1, who appeared as D.W.4, three witnesses were examined.
6. On consideration of the evidence produced in the case, the learned trial Court found that by virtue of the P.T.D. Issued in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents, they were the owners thereof, it was not established that the appellants were co-sharers in the property, the P.T.D. In favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and the Will in favour of Muhammad Akbar were never challenged. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents was decreed on 15-11-2001.
7. To appreciate the controversy it is necessary to explain the relationship of the parties with the original claimant i.e. Khan Bahadar Khurshid Muhammad who died in 1956. He left behind Sh.
Sardar Muhammad, Advocate, as his real brother and Mst. Mehr-un-Nisa as his widow who died respectively in the year 1976 and 1961. Sardar Muhammad had six sons and four daughters.
Muhammad Akbar, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs-respondents Nos.1 to 5 who died in 1990, and respondent No.6 are his two sons. Muhammad Ajmal who died in 1995 was another son of Sh. Sardar Muhammad. The two appellants are son and daughter of Muhammad Ajmal. These facts are not disputed.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the original claimant was Khan Bahadur Khurshid Muhammad, the property was allotted in his favour, on his death it devolved upon his brother and the widow and Muhammad Ajmal son of Sardar Muhammad, the predecessor-in- interest of the appellants, was a co-sharer in the disputed property, therefore, the plaintiffs- respondents were not the exclusive owners of the property in the dispute. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the oral evidence. Muhammad Akhtar, a son of Sh. Sardar Muhammad, and real brother of the appellants was examined as D.W.1. According to him the claim of Muhammad Khurshid was sanctioned in 1956, according to him the property was joint and he has been residing in the property from 1962 to 1966. Muhammad Usman Yousaf was examined as D.W.2. He claimed that respondents Nos.1 to 5 were his cousins {{URDU TEXT}} and respondent No.6 was his maternal uncle, the property was allotted in favour of Sh. Khurshid, who died without a male issue and that it was the family property. Masood Ashraf was examined as D.W.3. He is the son of defendant No.3 in the suit. According to him, the property belonged to Sh. Khurshid who died in 1957, his brother Sardar Muhammad and his widow Mehr-un-Nias were his legal heirs. According to him the Will made by Mehr-un-Nias and the P.T.D. Were forged and fictitious. It may be noted at the outset that according to this witness he was born in 1968 and his evidence according to his own showing, was hearsay. Mst. Najma Ajmal, appellant No.1, appeared in the witness-box as D.W.4. She also claimed that the property was owned by Khurshid, who died in 1957 leaving behind Sardar Muhammad and Mehr-un-Nisa as his heirs. She stated that she did not know about the P.T.D.
Except the relationship of the parties, the oral evidence led by appellants does not establish anything.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned judgment and decree on the reasons recorded therein and has further submitted that the claim of Khurshid Muhammad was initially verified on 23-7-1956 (Mark-A produced by the appellants).
However, after the death of Khurshid Muhammad, vide order dated 7-4-1958 of the Deputy Claims Commissioner, the heirs of Sheikh Muhammad Khurshid and their shares were determined as Mst.
Mehr-un-Nisa 1/10th share, Sh. Sardar Muhammad his brother, Muhammad Akbar, brother's son Muhammad Ashraf brother's son to the extent of 3/10 share each and the claim was verified vide order dated 9-4-1958 of the Deputy Claims Commissioner. The amounts of claims of the aforesaid four persons in Schedule I and Schedule VI were separately verified. It was further explained that Mst. Mehr-un-Nisa, had, by way of registered Will, settled her share on Muhammad Akbar, her adopted son, and the house in question was transferred against the verified claims of Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Ashraf and Mst. Mehr-un-Nisa. The certified copy of the order dated 9-4- 1958 is on the record of the trial Court although it is not formally exhibited. He also placed reliance on the Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1988-89 (Exh.P.9) showing the respondents as the owners of the Bungalow on an area measuring 6 Kanals, 11 Marlas and 215 sq. Ft.
10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. The material issues were Issues Nos.4- and 8 which are reproduced hereunder:-- ' Issue No.4. "Whether the suit has been filed on the basis of fraudulent and void documents? OPD."
' Issue No.8. "Whether the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit property, consisting of double storey bungalow and land bearing Property No.S-77-R-8/5 on the basis of joint PTD in favour of the plaintiff No.6 and predecessor of plaintiffs Nos.1 to 5? OPP"
' It may also be noted that Issues Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 were based on the preliminary objections of the defendants in the suit which were answered against them and the findings thereon have not been agitated before us.
11. As far as Issue No.4 is concerned, the burden of proof was on the appellants but there is no evidence whatsoever in support of the said issue. It was, therefore, rightly answered, against the appellants. As far as Issue No.8 is concerned, it was answered in favour of the respondents. Issue No.9 related to the claim of the respondents to damages in the sum of Rs.1 crore. It was, however, answered against the plaintiffs-respondents.
12. The P.T.D., Exh.P.7, is by itself a title document which was issued on 27-12-1961 and nobody objected to it till 29-6-1993 i.e. More than 31 years since the date of its issue. Except the bare allegation that it was fraudulently procured by concealing material facts, there is no evidence whatsoever on the record. Presumption of regularity is attached to all of official acts unless displaced by reliable evidence which is totally lacking in this case. Sardar Muhammad, the grandfather of the appellants, according to the Memo. Of appeal, was an Advocate and died in 1976 while the P.T.D. Was issued on 27-12-1961 and till his death in 1976 for about 15 years, Sardar Muhammad did not question the aforesaid P.T.D. As an Advocate he must be fully aware of his rights, if any, in the property and the mechanism to enforce it. His silence till his death is, therefore, a material circumstance, totally incompatible with the case of the appellants that the P.T.D. In favour of the respondents was outcome of fraud.
Muhammad Ajmal the father of the appellants, died in 1995 but only in 1993 he disputed the exclusive title of the respondents to the property in dispute. Besides Muhammad Ajmal, Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Ashraf, Sardar Muhammad had three other sons but none had any objection to the transfer of the property in favour of the respondents. It was, thus, a transaction past and closed and the PTD in favour of the respondents could not be collaterally impeached.
13. In the written statement, the passing of the orders dated 7-4-1958 (mentioned in the order dated 9-4-1958) and 9-4-1958 (wrongly mentioned as 9-1-1958) was not denied but it was asserted that the false re-verification was obtained on the basis of a false affidavit of Mst. Mehr- un-Nisa. Although the said order dated 9-4-1958 is not duly exhibited but the fact that it was passed is not denied. It is a certified copy of public record and thereof, we have taken it into consideration. The order dated 9-4-1958 explains issuance of PTD in favour of Muhammad Akbar predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 5 and respondent No.6. In the plaint, it was averred that transfer price of the house in question was paid through the compensation books of Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Ashraf and Mst. Mehr-un-Nisa. The stance of the appellants in the written statement was that the compensation books, through which the transfer price of the property was paid, were fabricated. The fact that transfer price was paid through the compensation books of Mst. Mehr-un-Nisa, Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Ashraf was not disputed. In fact, the basis of issuing compensation books to the respondents and Mst. Mehr-un- Nisa was the orders dated 7-4-1958 and 9-4-1958 of the Deputy Claims Commissioner.
13-A. After examining the evidence, we have no doubt in our mind that the plaintiffs-respondents had valid title to the property in dispute and there was no evidence whatsoever that the order dated 9-4-1958 and the P.T.D. Dated 27-12-19,1 issued in favour of the respondents were the outcome of any fraud or concealment of facts.
14. For what has been stated above, we find no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed with costs throughout.