1. ' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that one Mrs. Akhtar Amanullah wife of Amanullah Sardar was the owner of the Bungalow constructed on Plot No, F-13, 4th Gizri Street, Survey No, 26, measuring 2000 sq. Yds, situated at Phase IV, Defence Housing Authority Karachi, hereinafter referred to as said Bungalow, as per lease deed duly registered with sub- registrar T-Division, Karachi. It is alleged that the petitioners had purchased said Bungalow from said lady for Rs,50,00,000 (Rupees Fifty Lacs) through her attorney Mr. Deedar Hussain son of Dildar Khan, by virtue of sale-deed registered with sub-registrar T-Division, II-A, Karachi. After payment of Rs,1,10,000, as outstanding dues of Cantonment Board, Karachi, the record of ownership was changed in their favour vide letter, dated 12th February, 1998 of said Board. It is also their case that, as per clause 5 of the sale-deed, the possession of said Bungalow was handed over to them. It is alleged that the respondent by illegally exercising its power got security guard posted at said bungalow, hence the petitioner for the following reliefs:-- "It is, therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to remove its security guard from bungalow No,F-13, 4th Gizri Street (Survey No,26) Phase IV, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi forthwith to enable the petitioners to enjoy the peaceful possession thereof in the interest of justice."
2. ' The case of the respondent, in brief, is that said bungalow, since 14-5-1979 is the property of Mr. Amer Naji Zain Al-Dine, the then Consulate General of Iraq as he had purchased it through a registered Conveyance Deed. A plea has also been taken that legal heirs of said lady has filed the Civil Suit No,313 of 1998 for cancellation of instrument, declaration, injunction and damages to the extent of Rs,1.5 crores before this Court against the petitioners and the respondents.
3. ' Learned counsel for the parties have argued at length and by consent the petition is being admitted for its disposal on merits.
4. ' Mr. Ilamdin Khattak, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents wants to usurp said Bungalow and is not allowing the petitioners to use it. He points out that on 18-2-1998, the respondent had written a letter to the S.H.O. Police Station Defence Karachi (South) saying that said bungalow belonged to the Embassy of Re-public of Iraq and, as a consequences of said letter, the petitioners were arrested, but on verification of their title documents, they were released by the police. He also submits that, on 12th May, 1998, the respondent had also written a letter to Commissioner Karachi and DIG Police Karachi for taking over its possession and for posting guard there. According to him, under above circumstances, the guards were posted there.
5. ' On merits of the case, he has argued that_ the petitioners are ready to face all sorts of consequences, if their title documents are proved false. He submits that the alleged sale-deed in favour said Consulate General is a forged document and that it is on simple plain paper and does not show that the stamp duty was paid thereon. According to him, said Consulate General for the last 20 years did not take any interests in it, nor paid any taxes during said period, nor deputed any guard over it nor approached the respondent or any other authority in Pakistan for looking after it, nor it was shown that it was purchased after having obtained necessary permission from the Government of Pakistan. Learned counsel concludes that these facts individually and collectively indicate that said Bungalow was never purchased by said Consulate General.
6. ' It is surprising to note that, as per record of this case, neither said Consulate General nor Iraqi Embassy had ever approached to any authority in Pakistan in respect of said bungalow. Also, it cannot be believed that said bungalow was purchased only to be left unattended. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent was asked to explain if after the letter of the respondent, dated 1-4-1998, Iraqi Embassy or Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan ever approached the respondent for said bungalow and his reply was in the negative. Thus, it is not shown that said Consulate General or Iraqi Embassy has any genuine interest in said bungalow.
7. ' As regards the Suit No,313/98, it is noted that it was filed by Messrs Habibullah and Rehmatullah claiming to be the sons of late Amanullah Sardar, nominating therein the petitioners as respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Main plea in the suit was that said bungalow belonged to their mother namely . Akhtar Amanullah, who according to them, had expired on 10th July, 1989. It was alleged that their mother, having expired on 10th July, 1989, could not on 29-10-1997 execute power of attorney in favour of said Deedar Hussain in respect of said bungalow. Learned counsel for the petitioners on this point referred to a letter, dated 29-10-1998 of District Health Officer, DMC (South) wherein it was stated that there was no entry in the relevant record to show factum of death of Mrs. Akhter Amanullah on said date. Learned counsel also argued that, according to the information conveyed to him by the petitioners, said lady is still alive. He submitted that in said suit the petitioners were never served and some fictitious persons appeared as the Defendants. According to Compromise Application i,e, (C.M.A. No,488 of 1998) filed in said suit, the petitioners had handed over original title documents to the Plaintiffs. He contends that it is false as neither the petitioners appeared in said suit nor surrendered their title documents and that the suit was dismissed vide order, dated 29-8-1998, and even permission to file fresh one was not granted.
8. ' It is significant to note that the plaintiffs of said suit no where stated that their mother had already sold said bungalow to the Consulate General. Even said Consulate General was not made a party in said suit. Prima facie, it creates doubt about the correctness of the respondents version that said bungalow earlier was sold to said Consulate General.
9. ' It is made clear here that we have not decided the alleged dispute of ownership of said bungalow nor the alleged contestants viz; said Consulate General and legal heirs of said lady are before us, and any person claiming to be its owner may approach the concerned forum for such reliefs.
10. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we hold that said bungalow when it was taken over by the respondent, was in possession of the petitioners. Accordingly, we direct the respondent that its possession be delivered back to the petitioners and the guards posted there be removed.
11. ' On 29-1-1999 after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we had allowed the petition in above terms and these are reasons for the same.##TE