MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J. --- This case has a chequered history. The facts need be placed in 'chronological order. Karam Ali, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 5 to 12 owned land measuring 146 kanals in village Jalap,'Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha. In the first instance he sold the land measuring 2 kanals, 15 marlas to his son Amjad All vide registered sale-deed No. 457 (Ex.D3), dated 25.7A 973. On the same day he sold the remaining land measuring 143 kanals, 5 marlas to the petitioners vide registered sale-deed No. 458 (Ex.D4).'l may. Note here that the land was sold for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/- which amount was' paid in front of the Sub-Registrar.
Karam Ali filed a suit against the petitioners vide plaint Ex.D15 stating that he sold the land to the petitioners vide the said registered sale-deed but the mutation was rejected on 30.5.1974 as sale was found against the M.L.R. 115 and paid back the consideration amount of Rs. 80,000/-to the petitioners. He accordingly sought a declaration that he is owner of the land. While this suit was pending he filed another suit on 10.5.1975 against his son Amjad Ali. The declaration was sought that the sale of the said 2 kanals, 15 marlas of land is a result of fraud and is void and be set aside . This suit was decreed within 6 days on 16.5.1975 on the consenting statement of the said son of Karam Ali.
Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 became parties to the suit on the ground that on the basis of an award dated 30.9.1976 .(Ex.P1) and order dated 13.10.1976 making it a rule of Court (Ex.P2) Karam Ali transferred the same land to them..
They were accordingly impleaded a defendants. In the said suit issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded . It was dismissed vide judgment dated 2.3.1980.
Karam Ali as well as respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed separate appeals . These appeals were heard together by the learned District Judge, Sargodha, who dismissed both the appeals on 14.6.1983. Meanwhile, Karam Ali died and his L Rs. Were brought on record (i.e. Present respondents Nos. 5 to 12).
An appeal was filed in this Court which was allowed and the suit was remanded back with direction that the said plaintiffs be allowed to and the relief of possession. The said suit was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 6.5.1993.
2. Meanwhile, on 28.4.1993 the suit out of which this civil revision has arisen was by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. Subsequent vendees from Karam AU (hereinafter to be referred as the plaintiffs). It was stated in the plaint that they acquired land measuring 145 kanals, 15 marlas from Karam Ali vide Civil Court decree dated 13.10.1976 and they are in possession as owners the decree was incorporated in the revenue record vide Mutation No. 561 attested on 25.4.1977. Reference was then made to the said suit filed by Karam Ali and t 'being impleaded as party therein.
Thereafter they filed an application to be transposed as plaintiffs, which was ejected. They are apprehending collusion between t petitioners and L.Rs. Of Karam Ali and are filing the suit. The plea taken was that registered sale-deed dated 25.7.1973 in favour of the petitioners is void and liable to be cancelled under M.L.R. 115 and cannot be incorporated in the Revenue Record. It was explained that whereas Karam All was owner of 145 kanals, 15 marlas of 'land in the revenue estate, he sold 143 kanals, 5 marlas vide said sale-deed and sale being of partial holding is liable to be cancelled being violative of M.L.R. 115 and for this reason the plaintiffs are owners of the land on the basis of decree dated 13.10.1976. A declaration was sought accordingly. The suit was contested by the petitioners, who stated that the sale is valid and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to declare the same to be void under M.L.R. 115; that the sale stands incorporated in the Revenue Record. The respondents Nos. 5 to 12 denied having transferred the land to the plaintiffs while they did not deny the transaction in favour of learned Trial Court:--
(3) Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try this case ? OPD
(10) Whether the sale-deed dated 25.7.1973 is illegal, against facts, void and as such, is inoperative against the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide judgment and decree dated 25.2.1999 the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. A first appeal filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, on 26.1.2002 who decreed the suit of the plaintiffs as prayed for.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the impugned judgment and decree of ' the learned Additional District Judge is wholly without jurisdiction. According to them, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudge the validity of a sale under M.L.R. 115_ Reliance is 'placed on the case of Mst. Aisha Bibs v. Nazir Ahmed and 10 others (1994 SCM R 1935). Further contention is that by the time the suit was filed M.L.R. 115 itself had been declared to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam by, the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Qazalbash Waqf and others v. Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and others (PLD 1990 S.C. 99). Learned counsel vehemently urge that in any case the transaction was not at all hit by provisions of M.L.R.
115. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents, on the other hand, contends that notwithstanding the fact that sale was valid in its inception, because of the setting aside of the sale of 2 kanals, 15 marlas in favour of the son of Karam Ali vide the Court decree the sale in favour of the petitions became liable to be cancelled being violative of the provisions of 'M.L.R.
115. He insists that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant the requisite declaration.
4 I have gone through the copies of the records.
5. Apart from the said facts apparent on the face of record the settled rule of law is that jurisdiction to declare any transaction to be void under M.L.R. 115 exclusively vests in the Land Commission or its subordinate officers and jurisdiction of the Civil. Court as also all other Tribunals/Authorities is absolutely excluded as laid down in the case of Mst. Aisha Bibi being relied upon by the learned counsel and which has since been followed by all Courts in the country. The impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additionai District Judge, therefore, is wholly without lawful authority.
6. Needless to state that the relevant provisions of M.L.R. 115 stand declared to be repugnant to Injunctions of Islam and as such void vide the said judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and the judgment took effect on 28.4.1993 seeking. Cancellation of the sale-deed the said provisions of M.L.R. 115 could not even be entertained.
7. For all that has been discussed above, the civil revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 26.1.2002 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha is set aside while one passed by the learned Trial Court on 25.2.1999 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents is restored with costs throughout. Counsel fee is fixed at Rs. 20,000/-.