' SHEIKH HAKIM ALI, J.--- Both these civil appeals have arisen from one consolidated judgment of the learned Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in which parties, disputed property and questions of law and facts, are the same, therefore, both these civil appeals are being disposed of through this lone judgment.
2. A vacant plot, measuring 5 Marlas 148 sq. Ft., situated in the city of Chakwal, adjacent of Bhon Road, is the property in dispute, which was claimed by two parties, Muhammad Ishfaque, the appellant, now deceased and the respondents on the other hand, as successors-ininterest of Risaldar Fateh Muhammad.
3. Facts forming background to the present appeals are that the Settlement Department treating the above the mentioned open vacant plot, as a building site, included it in the list of vacant plots to be auctioned publicly and got this list published in the year, 1961. Conditions of auction published on 31-12-1961 are Mark-A. But ultimately, it was put to public auction, and the same was purchased by Mst. Hameeda Begum, in the auction of 1963. The auction was confirmed by AS&RC, Rawalpindi on 6-4-1967. P.T.O. No,600855 (Exh.P.8) was issued on that date in her favour. Mst. Hameeda Begum got the amount of Rs,4,500, the auction money adjusted through her compensation book and P.T.D.
(Exh.P.9) was issued in her favour on 30-10-1971. The map (Exh.P.10) of the building site along with its detail was prepared by Patwari of the Settlement Department concerned. This open plot purchased by Mst. Hameeda Begum from the Settlement Department was sold out by her to Muhammad Ishfaque, the present appellant, through an agreement to sell dated 8-9-1972. Suit on the basis of that agreement to sell, was filed by Muhammad Ishfaque, against Mst. Hameeda Begum in the Civil Court, to get declaration that the plot in question was owned and possessed by him, as he had purchased it from Mst. Hameeda Begum, defendant and that she had no concern with the plot in dispute. In that suit, plaintiff had also sought prayer for grant of permanent injunction, restraining defendant not to interfere into his possession. This suit was decreed on the basis of compromise on 25-9-1972, by the learned Civil Judge, Chakwal in favour of Muhammad Ishfaque plaintiff. On 25-5-1991, Mst. Mehr Bhari and others, the successors-in-interest of aforementioned Risaldar Fateh Muhammad instituted and suit against the Province of Punjab and Sheikh Muhammad Ishfaque, to obtain declaration that the disputed plot was owned and possessed by them and the defendants had no concernment with that land along with issuance of permanent injunctions. As a counterblast, Muhammad Ishfaque also filed a suit with the same prayers in his favour, against successors-in-interest of Risaldar Fateh Muhammad, namely, Ch. Muhammad Nawaz etc. The present respondents. Both these suits were consolidated 'by the learned Civil Court, and the unified issues were framed and the parties were directed to produce evidence. Oral as well as documentary evidence was produced by both the parties during the trial of the suit. Learned Civil Judge on 13-7-1992, decreed the suit of Sheikh Muhammad Ishfaque, while the suit of Mst. Mehr Bhari and others was dismissed. Appeals filed by Mst. Mehr Bhari and others against those judgments and decrees were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal on 11-10-1994, while the civil revision filed by respondents, Mst. Mehr Bhari and others were allowed by the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench on 1-10-2002 Hence the above noted appeals by Muhammad Ishfaque.
4. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of Muhammad Ishfaque, deceased submits that Mst. Hameeda Begum had purchased the plot in dispute in the year 1963, in auction, the possession of which was also taken by her from the Settlement Department. She had transferred it to Muhammad Ishfaque for Rs,8,500. Suit was filed by Muhammad Ishfaque and decree was passed in his favour, confirming the sale having been made by Mst. Hameeda Begum. Possession was also delivered to Mst. Hameeda Begum in the year 1963 and to her alienee in the year 1972, but the suit by Mst. Mehr Bhari and others, was filed in the year 1991, after about 19 years from the decree and 24 years from the date of issuance of P.T.O., therefore, the suit was badly time barred and could not be decreed. Further submits that in the suit of Mst. Mehr Bhari and others, decree dated 25-9-1972; in favour of Muhammad Ishfaque; auction of the plot in favour of Mst. Hameeda Begum; P.T.O. Dated 6-4-1967 and P.T.D. Of 30-10-1071, were never Challenged' prayer for recovery of possession was never asked, although it was with the appellant since its purchase. Plot in question was an evacuee urban building site of about 5 Marlas, which was rightly treated by Settlement Department, as such and disposed of through public auction. Its determination as evacuee nature cannot be questioned or upset in the Civil Court, especially after the repeal of Evacuee Laws. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by two learned Civil Courts, could not be upset in the revisional jurisdiction of limited scope.
5. Learned counsel has also referred to subsection (3) of section 2, subsection (2) of section 3, sections 7 to 10, 22 and 41 of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, section 2(4), Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, sections 3, 22, 25, Schedule, para.III, 13, 14 (relating to building sites) of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958; Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, and to the entries of Settlement record of rights of 1939- 40; Jambandies ranging from 1942-43 to 1987-88 and the other documentary and oral evidence, to contend that the plot in dispute was an urban. Plot (building site) situated in Chakwal City. It was evacuee in nature and was falling in the definition of "Evacuee Property and was treated completely as such, by the Settlement Department and disposed of through public auction, which was never got declared as Muslim Property by respondents or their predecessor-in-interest from the learned Custodian or objected to against its treatment and allotment at the relevant time. So, it could not be declared Muslim property by the learned High Court in revisional jurisdiction, particularly after the repeal of Evacuee Laws.
6. Contrary to it, learned counsel for respondents has submitted that plot in question was a Muslim owned property which was owned by Risaldar Fateh Muhammad, the predecessor-in-interest of Mst. Mehr Bhari, etc, and it could not be treated by Settlement authorities as evacuee. He has referred to entries of Jamabandies (Exh.P.13 to Exh.P.25) to support his contention and to display that in column No,3 of cultivation, "Kalu Ram Singh" was entered as "Ghair Mustakil" cultivator while in column No,8 of the Lagan, he was noted as "Bila Lagan Ba Tassawar Bai" which entries were clearly depicting, at the most, entries of adverse nature of his possession, not conferring right upon Settlement Department, to treat it as an evacuee property and to transfer it to any one. Entries could not be read as declaring evacuee "Kalu Ram Singh" owner of the plot in dispute because the entries of Lagan and those of cultivation columns could not be allowed to carry preference as compared to entries of the owners column. In these circumstances, a declaration of ownership on the basis of above noted entries, was essential from the learned Custodian by the Settlement Department or its predecessor, Kalu Ram Singh. He has referred to provision of sections 22 to 41 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957. He has cited the following judgments also:-- "Muhammad Ismail v. Abdul Haq and others 2001 SCM R 1350, Lala and another v. Mst. Jante 1968 SCMR 131, Shamshad and others v. Mukammil Shah and others 1984 SCMR 912 and Ali Akbar and others v. Malook and others 1991 SCM R 829."
' Further submits that all the documents of PTO and PTD were fake, and based on fraud. Settlement Department could not treat such plot an evacuee property. Therefore, the judgment of learned Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench may be upheld.
7. After hearing the learned counsel and scrutinizing the record, we have given our anxious thought to the propositions and questions, raised in the case. We have noted with concern that in the suit instituted by Mst. Mehr Bhari and others, inclusion of plot in dispute in the list of properties/plots/building sites to be auctioned by the Settlement Department as far back as in the year 1961; the issuance of P.T.O. (Exh.P.8), on 6-4-1967, payment of price of property purchased through auction by Mst. Hameeda Begum through her compensation book; issuance of P.T.D. On 30-10-1971 (Exh.P.9); the map of the evacuee building site/plots prepared by Settlement Patwari (Exh.P.10), copy of register CSC-IV (Exh.P.12) of Village Chakwal, prepared for evacuee plots, particularly with regard to the plot in dispute by the Settlement Department; agreement to sell between Mst. Hameeda Begum and Muhammad Ishfaque (Exh.P.1), suit filed by Muhammad Ishfaque against Mst. Hameeda Begum on 20-9-1972 (Exh.P.3) consenting written statement filed by Mst. Hameeda Begum in that suit on 25-9-1972 (Exh.P.4); statement of Mst. Hameeda Begum recorded on 25-9-1972 giving consent in favour of Muhammad Ishfaque; judgment dated 25-9- 1972 by learned Civil Judge, Chakwal upon that consent (Exh.P.6); A decree of the even date in the aforementioned suit (Exli.P.7) are the material documents and events, which cannot be assimilated by mere mentioning in the suit of Mst. Mehr Bhari or in the written statement filed in the suit of Muhammad Ishfaque by her that no PTO or PTD was ever issued in favour of Mst. Hameeda Begum or if proved, to be considered as based on fraud without power, and jurisdiction; etc. As these facts and documents must have been challenged with clear and specific objections in the pleadings.
Treatment by Settlement Department of the property in dispute as an evacuee property, and all the above noted material events, which had followed thereafter were not challenged specifically in the suit, filed by Mst. Mehr Bhari and others. We have noted that these important events and material documents, upon which evidence was also led by Muhammad Ishfaque were not objected to by Mst. Mehr Bhari and others, when these documents were produced into evidence nor these were prayed to be declared null and void in the suit filed by Mst. Mehr Bhari and others.
Vague, ambiguous and generalized pleas cannot fulfil the requirements of provision of Order VI Rule 2 of the, C.P.C. Which has required a plaintiff to state the material facts in clear terms and if fraud was committed or documents were fake or B fraudulent, how those were so? Was to be clearly entered into the pleadings, according to Rule 10 of Order VI of the, C.P.C. Suit of Mst. Mehr Bhari and others had lacked these requirement of law. The official record of the Settlement Department and the above mentioned overwhelming documentary evidence expending from the year 1961 to C 1972 cannot be considered to be used on fraud or fake in nature. It can be safely deduced from the above noted documentary evidence,consisting of official record of Settlement Department as well as of the Civil Court that Settlement Department had treated this vacant plot to be an evacuee property, and had allotted it to Mst. Hameeda Begum, who had paid the price of the plot through her compensation book and the plot in question was sold to Muhammad Ishfaque as far back as in the year 1972, when the decree affirming the sale transaction between Mst.
Hameeda Begum and Muhammad Ishfaque was passed. This transaction of sale and documents of important nature were of vital importance and must not have been ignored to be challenged by Mst. Mehr Bhari and others in their suit. Due to failure of this requirement, the conclusion would be that we would have to hold that the Settlement Department had treated it as an evacuee property before the year 1961. The slackness of Mst. Mehr Bhari and ethers or their predecessor in interest, Risaldar Fateh Muhammad, to claim the aforementioned property as Muslim one, goes to establish the fact that they had no objection with regard to the treatment of this property as an evacuee property. The reference to sections 22/41 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, as pleaded by learned counsel for respondents, has gone against their own version. Why respondents and their predecessor-in-interest had kept mum and not filed proceedings to get such declaration from the learned Custodian that the plot in dispute was a Muslim owned and not an evacuee property. The treatment of plot as an evacuee property before the year 1961 or even thereafter, before the repeal of the Evacuee Law, has sealed the fate of respondents due to bar of provision of sections 22 and 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (which shall be noted as "The Act" hereafter). According to Section 22 of the above noted Act, the treatment of property in dispute as an evacuee property by the Settlement Department would be final, while section 25 of the aforementioned Act, provides that the learned Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to upset it. There is another important fact of the case which is floating on the surface. The suit for obtaining declaration with regard to their ownership by respondents could be competent, when the order of treatment and the disposal of the property in dispute by the Settlement Department was challenged and was got set aside by or from a competent forum, which exercise was not performed by the respondents. The, respondents, it appears, were perhaps cognizant of this important defect, because of their suit badly barred by time against the treatment of the property in dispute as an evacuee, its public auction and transfer. It was, therefore, that they had not challenged it in their suit. The suit was clearly barred by time against that allotment. The suit filed by Mst. Mehr Bhari in the year 1991 against the treatment and disposal of the property in dispute was hopelessly barred by time. The suit of the respondents was rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court as upheld by the learned appellate Court. We cannot hold the treatment of plot in dispute to be void or without jurisdiction, because the respondents have failed to lay down the foundation in their case, to challenged these material and important events.
Failure to dispute these important events/ orders raises adverse presumption as regards to the correctness of their version and as to the truthful nature of the case of respondents. They cannot be granted discretionary relief of declaration by the learned Civil Court in the above noted circumstances. Appellant, Muhammad Ishfaque, has been shown a bona fide purchaser in the year 1972, from the above documents and evidence. It cannot be believed that he had not obtained the possession of the plot in dispute in the year 1972, when he had purchased it from Mst.
Hameeda Begum. The agreement of tenancy, dated 17-11-1985 by Saeed Ahmed, the statement on oath of the tenant, who had appeared as P.W.2, the statement of marginal witnesses of that agreement of tenancy (Exh.P.2) by Shaukat Iqbal (P.W.3) are the hardcore facts, which could not be disputed by the respondents and could not be believed as fake and fraudulent by us. Therefore, the suit of the respondents without claiming possession was not maintainable.
9.(sic) We have also considered the entries of permanent Settlement record of rights of the year of 1939-40 (Exh.P.13) and the entries thereafter contained in the Jamabandies, which were continuing with more or less in the same position in the next periodical record of Jamabandies. In column No,3 of this permanent record of right (Settlement of 1939-40), the following entries have been found therein "Ghulam Muhammad son of Vayat and Fateh Muhammad son of Mawaz Khan" "Malekan Qaabza Ba Hissa Braber" Samandar Khan etc. "Mundarja (entered) Khata 407, Hissa Daaran Shamilat". Upon strength of this entries, in column No,3 (Exh.P.13); respondents are claiming their ownership upon the plot in dispute. Words "Malekan Qaabza" "Hissa Daaran Shamilat" have and could not be explained by the learned counsel for the respondents. As to how these words could confer upon them right of absolute ownership with regard to the plot in dispute to Fateh Muhammad, particularly when he had been shown along with another person Ghulam Muhammad, "Malekan Qaabza with equal share". In other words, these entries do not depict absolute ownership of the plot in dispute vesting with the respondents' predecessor-in-interest. In fact, these entries were referring to a right to hold possession, in favour of these two persons in equal share i.e, "Ghulam Muhammad and Fateh Muhammad", while Samandar Khan and others were shown co-shares of Shamalat lands. If these entries are believed to convey the right of ownership for the sake of arguments, even then, respondents could not claim ownership rights upon the complete plot of 5 Marlas 148 sq. Ft., as they were recorded having half share of right to hold possession" of the plot in dispute. In these above noted circumstances, it was essential for them to get them declared as absolute owners of the plot in dispute from the learned Custodian in which they had failed. Therefore, their suit was rightly dismissed by the two learned Courts below i.e, the learned trial as well as the appellate Court.
10. Keeping in view the above noted reasons and discussions, we are of the view that the impugned judgment of the learned Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench requires to be set aside and the suit of Muhammad Ishfaque merits to be decreed by dismissing the suit of Mst. Mehr Bhari and'others, respondents. According, we restore the judgment of the learned appellate Court i.e, District Judge, upholding that of learned trial Court with no order as to costs.