1. GHULAM RABBANI, J.--- Both these civil revision applications arise out of the same judgment, involve common question of facts and law hence are disposed of by this single judgment.
2. Civil Revision Application No,117 of 1994 has been filed by Piral and others while Civil Revision Application No,127 of 1994 has been filed by Mst. Ghulam Zainab and Mst. Ghulam Sakina, legal heirs of late Mir Ghulam Rasool against the common judgment dated 7-6-1994 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Sukkur dismissing appeals of both, appellants against the decree, dated 13-1-1993 drawn on judgment dated 7-1-1993 in F.C. Suit No,191 of 1986 (old No,22 of 1986) passed by learned IInd Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur.
3. The facts noted for disposal of the above two civil revision applications are that S.No,593 and 1126 total area 7-6 acres in Deh Kandhra, Taluka Rohri, District Sukkur (hereinafter referred to as disputed land), were sold out to Messrs Abdul Rasheed, Abdul Hameed and Dost Muhammad, respondents Nos,5 to 7 respectively in both revision applications (hereinafter to be referred to as purchasers) by Messrs Mir Ghulam Rasool, Mir Ali Hyder and Mir Ali Muhammad by way of registered sale-deed dated 15-2-1966. On the basis of aforementioned sale-deed, an entry of ownership of the said respondents was kept in Revenue Record. At some later time, one Lal Bux late father of applicants Nos,1 to 4 and husband of applicant No,5 in Civil Revision Application No,117 of 1994 and respondents Nos,8 to 12 in Civil Revision Application No,127 of 1994 (hereinafter to be referred to as tenant(s)) filed an application before Deputy Land Commissioner challenging the above sale and the consequential entries in Revenue Record. The above application was disposed of by learned Deputy Land Commissioner vide his order, dated 18-6-1969 holding that the sale of the disputed land was hit by MLR 64. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, purchasers filed an appeal before the Commissioner who vide his order, dated 18-8-1969 maintained the order of learned Deputy Commissioner. At some subsequent time, on the basis of statements dated 20-11- 1969 of the original owners/sellers of the disputed land as regards sale of the same land to the purchasers- an Entry No,68 of the same date was kept by Mukhtiarkar of Taluka Rohri. The purchasers, thereafter, moved an application before Mukhtiarkar and Tenancy Tribunal seeking a direction to the tenant(s) for Batai of the produce of the disputed land. Learned Mukhtiarkar disposed of the said application vide his order, dated 23-4-1982 holding inter alia, that the second entry in Revenue Record dated 20-11-1969 was without legal authority and since he was not competent to cancel/revise the same, the tenants (opponents) would be at liberty to file appeal against the same before the Appellate Authority. The tenants, therefore, filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Rohri who vide his order, dated 31-5-1982 cancelled the entry in the Revenue Record which stood in favour of purchasers and ordered the reversion of the land in the names of the original owners namely Mir Ali Hyder and others. Against the aforesaid order, the purchasers filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur which was allowed vide his order, dated 24-12-1985 restoring the entries in favour of the purchasers.
4. It is evident that the tenants challenged the above order, dated 24-12-1985 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur through F.C. Suit No,191 of 1986 (old No,22 of 1986) before learned IInd Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur in which beside the purchasers, Mir Ghulam Rasool Khan who happened to be original owner of the disputed land was also impleaded. After trial, the above suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 7-1-1993 followed by decree dated 13-1-1993. Feeling aggrieved by said decree the tenants and the legal heirs of Mir Ghulam Rasool, the original owner preferred separate appeals which, too, were dismissed under the judgment impugned herein.
5. Mr. Zuber Ahmed Rajput, learned State counsel stated that official respondents have no interest to pursue the matter. He offered no arguments.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties in both the civil revision applications and with their assistance I have also gone through the material made available before me.
7. At the outset, it may be stated that learned counsel for the parties admitted that the original owners had only S.No,593 and S.No,1126 total area 7-6 acres in Deh Kandhra, Taluka Rohri, District Sukkur in their ownership which they sold out under the registered sale-deed dated 15-6-1966. It may be stated that Messrs Nazir Ahmed Awan, Ahmed Ali Memon and Bahadur Ali Shah in their arguments stated that the above sale of the land was violative of paragraph 24 of MLR 64 therefore, in my view it will be advantageous to reproduce the said paragraph as follows:-- Section 25 Restriction on alienation of holding.
8. (1)
9. (2)
10. (3)
11. (4)No person owning an area equal to or less than a subsistence holding shall be allowed to alienate by sale, mortgage, gift or otherwise any part of his holding: Provided that he may alienate his entire holding.
12. Perusal of the judgment, dated 7-1-1993 passed by learned IInd Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur shows that learned trial Court has made therein the following observation:-- "Since the plaintiffs, mere by reason of being Haris, have got no legal right or title over the suit-land and they have also not claimed any such right or title in their plaint nor they have sought any such declaration in their plaint, therefore, they have no locus standi to challenge the sale entry which has never been challenged by the aggrieved defendant No,8 himself though he was also made party in the appeal decided by defendant No,2, vide order, dated 24-12-1985 (Exh.76) which can adversely affect the right and title of defendant No,8 only. Whereas the plaintiffs are still enjoying the suit-land being in its cultivating possession as Haris, therefore, they cannot be ejected by defendants without due course of law as, admittedly, there is also such a decree already passed by learned Civil Judge, Rohri on 30-10-1980 in plaintiffs earlier Suit No,10 of 1966 (new No,3 of 1975) and the same is still binding upon the parties. The certified true copy of such judgment is also produced by plaintiffs as Exh.72. Accordingly, the present suit is however, not maintainable in its present form."
13. He has further observed that no appeal or revision was filed before the Commission against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner which fact has also not been denied during the course of arguments by either Mr. Nazir Ahmed Awan or by Mr. Ahmed Ali Memon and Mr. Bahadur Ali Shah.
14. Perusal of the impugned judgment, dated 7-6-1994 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Sukkur reflects that as regards locus standi of the tenants it has been observed that tenant Piral had deposed that he was Moroosi Hari on the land in question while respondent No,5 Abdul Rasheed admitted this position by saying that Lal Bux father of Piral was Hari on the disputed land.
15. Learned Appellate Court then while relying on Article 115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order observed that in view of the said provision the tenants were stopped to deny or dispute the title of the landlord the respondents Nos,5 to 7, therefore, they had no cause of action so also a tenant could not challenge the title of the landowner under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act hence they had no right and title in the suit property. Mr. Nazir Ahmed Awan during the course of his arguments did not refer to any law to indicate that by virtue of being Moroosi Hari of disputed land the tenants could be termed to enjoy a right to challenge the ownership of the land. No other right in favour of the tenants was brought to my notice to exist in the applicants or their predecessor-in-interest referred to. As regards seller/original owners are concerned, it may be stated that at no stage they challenged either the previous sale by way of registered sale-deed in favour of purchasers (respondents Nos,5 to 7) in 1966 nor they challenged any entry kept on the basis of said sale-deed.
16. They also did not challenge the entries of ownership kept in favour of purchasers on 29-11-1969 in Revenue Record either before Revenue Authorities or by way of any civil litigation. This factual position has not been denied either by Mr. Ahmed Ali Memon or by Mr. Bahadur Ali Shah. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that learned Appellate Court has made an observation in this connection as follows:-- "The appellant Mir Ghulam Rasool and his legal heirs have agitated against the sale but have not applied before any proper forum nor have tiled any suit pertaining to such declaration. The conduct of the appellant Mir Ghulam Rasool has remained such and due to their omission to challenge the contention pertaining to the title of respondents Nos,5 to 7 for such a long span of time stopped them from agitating at this stage under section 114, Qanun-e-Shahadat which is reproduced:-- "114. Estoppel.--- When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed in any suit for proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing."
17. Therefore, this point is adjudicated in affirmative."
18. The observations of learned Appellate Court have not been shattered by Mr. Memon and Mr. Shah so also by Mr. Awan in their respective arguments. I also do not find myself inclined to disagree with the same. Admittedly there are concurrent findings of the two. Courts below .and no illegality therein has been pointed out. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in these two civil revision applications and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.