' SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN JAFFERY, J.--- This appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment dated 12-4-2008, passed by High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Circuit, whereby revision application, filed by the appellants, was dismissed. Vide order dated 20-7-2006, leave to appeal was granted in the following terms:-- "In this petition against concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below and upheld by the Sindh High Court by judgment dated 12-4-2006 decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of urban property at Hyderabad challenging the validity and correctness of transfer of property exclusively in the name of late Major Abdul Hanif, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, issues of limitation and bar of jurisdiction of civil court were raised, at the earliest stage.
' In the first instance, the house in suit was allotted in the name of Lt. Rahim Khan way back on 16-4- 1948. Subsequently, the property was transferred in favour of Major Abdul Hanif and his two brothers Abdul Aziz and Abdul Latif and their mother Mst. Mehmooda on or about 11-10-1959. Major Abdul Hanif, however, succeeded in securing an order on 13-1-1960 from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferring the house in suit exclusively in his name on the basis of joint affidavit purportedly sworn by his two brothers and mother. Exclusive transfer and title to property was challenged by legal heirs of deceased Abdul Latif and the widow of Abdul Aziz in March, 1978. It is stated at bar that subsequently Mst. Iqrar Fatima daughter of Abdul Aziz had withdrawn from the suit which was contested by the legal heirs of Abdul Latif and decreed in their favour.
' It is inter alia contended that the High Court did not advert to the 'vital questions of bar of limitation as well as bar of A jurisdiction under section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 in the backdrop of repeal of evacuee laws with effect from 1st July, 1974.
Leave to appeal is accordingly allowed to consider the afore-said questions of law."Briefly stated that respondents Nos.1 to 12 claimed that their predecessor-in-interest namely late Abdul Latif was one out of four co-sharers of the property in question which was initially allotted to four co-sharers namely three brothers and their mother which property has illegally been transferred in favour of Major Abdul Hanif, one of the said four co-sharers, vide order dated 13-1-1960 which fact has come to their knowledge in January, 1978. Hence, they filed a suit in March, 1978 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad seeking declaration and injunction that the transfer order dated 13-1-1960, passed by the then Settlement Authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 be declared as illegal and that the said respondents are co-sharers of the property in question. They also sought permanent injunction. The suit was decreed and appeal and revision, filed by the appellants, were dismissed.
2. Mr. Khalid Javed, learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the learned High Court did not advert to the vital questions of bar of limitation as well as bar of jurisdiction under section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 in the backdrop of repeal of evacuee laws with effect from 1st July, 1974; that the suit was hopelessly barred by time in 1978 and the cause of action, if any, accrued on 13-1-1960 when the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed the order whereas the suit has been filed in January, 1978 i,e, after 18 years; that dispute arose after the death of all the three brothers as Abdul Aziz died in 1971, Abdul Latif died in 1977 and Major Abdul Hanif died in 1977, thereafter the suit was filed in the year, 1978; that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter involving dispute of title regarding evacuee property having been transferred vide order dated 13-1-1960 followed by Permanent Transfer Deed issued in 1962 under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
Act, 1958, that the order passed by Settlement Authorities under the above said Act would attain finality if it is not challenged in the same hierarchy and the civil Court would have no jurisdiction either to determine the character of property under the said law or entitlement of person for allotment due to statutory bar; that the issue regarding limitation having been raised specifically by the appellants has not been dealt with by the learned courts below in accordance with law; that the impugned judgment suffers from misreading and non-reading of evidence on record and that the learned High Court has not taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspectives. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases reported in Muhammad Sarwar and 5 others v. Muhammad Ali and 18 others 2002 SCM R 829, Zafarul Hassan and others v, Muhammad Kalim and others 1993 SCM R 2028 and Begum Shams-un-Nisa v. Said Akbar Abbasi and another PLD 1982 SC 413.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Leghari, learned A.-G. Sindh, appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.13 to 15, has supported the impugned judgment and opposed the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.
5. As far as respondents Nos.1-12 are concerned, they were served with notices and thereafter they engaged Mr. Arshad Tayyab Ali as Advocate Supreme Court and Mr. M.S. Khattak as Advocate-on- Record. Mr. Arshad Ali Tayyab, learned Advocate Supreme Court had appeared on different dates of hearing but now he is neither attending the Court nor any intimation has been received. On 29- 6-2009, Mr. Arshad Ali Tayyab, learned Advocate Supreme Court, was called for many times but he did not appear and the case was adjourned for 30-6-2009. Even on the said date of hearing, he was found absent. Learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.-G., Sindh waited for sufficient time but in vain. However, the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.-G., Sindh were heard in detail and the judgment was reserved.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Advocate-General, Sindh at considerable length and gone through the entire material available on record with their able assistance. Learned High Court while deciding the case has observed as under:--- "After going through all the documents, the issue before me is to see whether material irregularity has been committed by the two courts below or not. From the evidence and the documents pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, and the discussion made above, I have come to the conclusion that both the lower courts have properly appreciated the evidence and nothing is wrong in their findings, therefore, this revision application is dismissed."
' Admittedly, the suit filed by the respondents was not maintainable in law, the civil court has no jurisdiction in respect of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 as the evacuee properties are involved in dispute. The civil suit was filed in 1978 which was hopelessly barred by time having been filed after eighteen years against the order dated 13-1-1960, passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Moreover, none of the original co-sharers had raised any objection during their life time on transfer of property in question in the name of predecessor-in- interest of the appellants. The decision of the Settlement Authorities in 1960 and issue of PTD in 1962 attained finality. It has never been questioned before 1978 whereas relevant law has also been repealed in 1975. On above-mentioned points, no finding has been given by the courts below.
Therefore, both the courts below have arrived at a conclusion due to misreading and non-reading or even total disregard of evidence on record. The withdrawal of the suit by the legal heirs of one out of four original co-sharers by admitting the transfer of the property in the name of predecessor-ininterest of the appellants as valid is a clear admission to this effect and no finding is also given in this regard by the learned courts below. Even the legal points of law were raised and specifically pleaded before the lower forums have not been pleaded in the impugned judgment and no finding was given in this issue. While deciding the civil revision by the learned High Court which was dismissed primarily on the ground that since the affidavits of no objection are not available on the file of Settlement Authorities and the order dated 13-1-1960 was passed without notice by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as such there is no material irregularity having been committed by the courts below. The witnesses examined in the learned trial court have admitted that their elders have not informed that they had any share in the property nor they were aware if any PTD was issued before writing to affidavits by the two brothers of late Major Abdul Hanif. Even P.W. Abdul Jamil Khan had admitted that he was not aware regarding date and month of the writing of the affidavits but suggested that it was made in the year, 1959. The original co- sharers namely Abdul Aziz was expired in the year, 1970, Mst. Mehmooda expired in 1972, Abdul Latif expired in February, 1977 and Major Abdul Hanif expired in November, 1977 and none of the co- sharers have ever objected, transfer of the property in question in the name of co-sharer Major Abdul Hanif during their life time. Even the legal heirs of late Abdul Aziz had withdrawn the suit which prima facie reflects that the property in question vests with the appellants' deceased father Major Abdul Hanif and the respondents who are the legal heirs of late Abdul Latif have filed suit. The courts below have not considered and appreciated the elements constituting the alleged fraud and undue influence which was specifically pleaded with particulars thereof by mere vague allegations nor any evidence was led to that effect. As such, the conclusion drawn by the courts below was contrary to law in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also a fact that after transfer of property in question in the name of predecessor-in-interest of the appellants Major Abdul Hanif had got the building plan approved in his own name from the competent authority at Hyderabad and raised construction in the building and nobody had objected to this act. The issue regarding limitation was raised specifically by the appellants but the same was not dealt with by the courts below. In respect of jurisdiction of civil court it is obvious that dispute wad relating to the title of the property besides bar of jurisdiction under sections 22 and 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred to entertain the suit involving disputes of title relating to the evacuee property. It was incumbent upon the civil court to decide the point of jurisdiction before proceeding with the case on merits. The learned High Court has omitted to attend issue No,3 framed in the civil suit under section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 which was no more available in the present case after the repeal of evacuee laws in 1974 and thus committed a jurisdictional error. In view of principles of settlement laws, civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter whereby it has adjudicated the dispute relating to the title of the property. We are of the view that the orders passed by the Settlement Authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 have attained finality and the civil court has no jurisdiction either to determine the character of the property under the above-said law or entitled a person for allotment due to statutory bar. It has also come on record that PTD was issued in favour of Major Abdul Hanif exclusively in July, 1962 and none has objected in this regard. Hence, the matter stands concluded which was questioned by the respondents by filing civil suit in 1978 i,e, after eighteen years.
' For the foregoing reasons, facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the suit filed by the respondents was not maintainable and the judgments passed by the Courts below are based on
(sic) without lawful authority which are set aside. The instant appeal is allowed and the appellants are entitled to the property in question as decided by the Settlement Authorities under the evacuee laws.