' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---The appellants/defendants, through the filing of the present second appeal, have challenged the judgment and decree, dated 14-6-1993, whereby, the learned Additional District Judge accepted respondents' appeal, decreed their suit to the extent of Rs.3804 and set aside the judgment and decree, dated 9-5-1988 passed by the learned Civil Judge, through which he dismissed respondents' suit for the recovery of R5000.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that Syed Hameed Ali son of Shams-ul-Ulema Syed Mumtaz Ali, the predecessor in interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5000, on account of his half share in the sale proceeds of 138 letters, sold for Rs.10,000 to the National Museum of Pakistan Karachi, against Syed Imtiaz Ali Taj son of Shams-ul- Ulema Syed Mumtaz Ali, the predecessor in interest of the appellants. During the pendency of the suit, the original parties to the suit died and their legal heirs, the parties to the appeal, were impleaded as necessary parties in the suit. It was averred in the plaint that Syed Hamid Ali and Syed Imtiaz Ali Taj were real brothers, their father, namely, Shams-ul-Ulema Syed Mumtaz Ali was a literary figure and Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Shibli Naumani, Maulvi Abdul Haq, Munshi Prem Chand etc. Wrote 138 letters to Syed Mumtaz Ali, which were reportedly in possession of Syed Hameed Ali. It was the case of the appellants that it was agreed between the two sons of Shams-ul-Ulema Syed Mumtaz Ali, namely, the original parties to the suit, that these letters should be compiled and published in the form of a book with an introduction by Syed Imtiaz Ali Taj; that the book was to be published for the benefit of the parties to the suit and thus those letters were handed over to Syed Imtiaz Ali Taj. It has been submitted in the plaint that Syed Imtiaz Ali Taj, instead of publishing a book, sold 138 letters to National Museum of Pakistan Karachi for a sum of Rs.10,000 and as he did not pay the 50% of the said sum, amounting to Rs.5000, therefore, Syed Hamid Ali filed the aforenoted suit. The predecessor in interest of the appellants contested the suit, thereby taking preliminary objection and, inter alia, pleading that Syed Hameed Ali had no right in respect of collection and custody of those letters, which were exclusively addressed to Syed Imtiaz Ali Taj and those letters were kept in lawful possession and custody of the defendant, thus, it was the stance of the defendants .That Syed Hameed Ali had no "locus standi" to file the suit.
3. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed 5 issues, which were reframed on 10-2-1973, evidence of the parties was recorded and ultimately the learned trial Court dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree, dated 9-5-1988. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 felt aggrieved and assailed the said decision before the appellate forum, and the learned Additional District Judge accepted their appeal and while setting aside the decree of the learned trial Court, passed a decree for the recovery of Rs.3804 against the appellants, hence the present appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that all the letters were in possession of Syed Imtiaz Ali Taj; that he was the exclusive owner of all the rights arising out of the letters, and that no agreement was executed between the parties regarding compilation of any book, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in. Law, as compared to the judgment of the learned trial Court. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3, while supporting the impugned judgment, has submitted that the learned trial Court, in fact, committed legal errors in rendering the judgment, which have been rectified by the learned appellate Court, thus, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court.
' I have examined the impugned judgment and find that the learned Additional District Judge has exhaustively examined the issues involved in the case rightly, comprehended the crux of the matter and while appreciating the evidence on record reached to the proper conclusions, which to my mind are not open to exception. It is admitted by both the parties that out of those 138 letters, 105 letters were written by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan to Syed Mumtaz Ali, the father of the parties, while the rest of the letters were addressed to Syed Imtiaz Ali Taj alone. I am of the view that the learned Additional District Judge has rightly grasped the real issues and came to the authoritative conclusion that Syed Hameed Ali has no nexus with the ownership/rights of those letters, which were directly written to Syed Imtiaz Ali Taj, while the letters which were written to the father of the parties, of course, the parties have an equal right to claim the rights arising out of those letters. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment of the learned Addl.
District Judge, which reads as follows:- "....So in this way it is proved that Sir Syed Ahmad Khan wrote 105 letters to Syed Mumtaz Ali. Syed Mumtaz Ali was father of Syed Hameed Ali and Syed Imtiaz Ali Taj. These letters were sold along with other letters by Syed Imtiaz Ali Taj to the National Museum for sum of Rs.10,000. In my considered opinion the plaintiffs had every right to claim their half share in these 105 letters. On this account the findings of lower Court on issues Nos. 4 and 5 as not sustainable. In accordingly set aside the findings of the learned trial Judge on issues Nos. 4 and 5. It is admitted by both the parties that 138 letters were sold by Syed Imtiaz Ali Taj to National Museum for Rs.10,000. In this way the price of 105 letters comes to Rs.7608, and the plaintiffs are entitled to receive Rs.3804 from defendants/ respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Respondents/defendants No.3 has no liability to pay the price to appellants/plaintiffs."
5. I have also examined the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court and find that the same is not sustainable in law, as it is the result of mis-reading and non-reading of the record. To my mind, the said judgment suffers from legal errors, which have been rectified by the learned lower appellate Court by reversing the findings of the learned trial Court and substituting its own findings, which are supported by reasons. I am not inclined to restore the judgment of the learned trial Court, which has rightly been reversed by the learned lower appellate Court.
6. In my view as the impugned judgment is neither contrary to the evidence nor in violation of the principle of administration of justice, thus the judgment of the learned appellate Court should ordinarily be preferred. If any case is needed, judgments reported as Mir Muhammad alias Miral v.
Ghulam Muhammad (PLD 1996 KaAchi 202) and Ilamuddin through legal heirs v. Syed Sarfraz Hussain through legal heirs and 5 others (1999 CLC 312) can be referred.
7. In the above perspective, I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment is legal, unexceptionable and does not call for any interferetice by this Court, thus the same is hereby maintained.
8. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is D devoid of merits, thus,.The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.