'SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.---Civil Suit No,449 of 2006 was filed by present respondent for possession, damages and permanent injunction. Against present applicants. Subject matte' of the suit is property situated on plot measuring 1180 sq. Yds. Where a Mandar was constructed before partition and it was later on granted to Hyderabad Amil Cooperative Housing Society on 4-2-1939.
On 24-6-1948 Mr. Bhagwan Singh Advani President of the Guru Mandar Association who had migrated to India agreed to sell this property to one Fredrick Sidnay Cotton and sale-deed was registered on 16-1-1951 after survey was contemplated by section 17 of the Ordinance XV of 1949 by the Additional Custodian (Judicial). Sale was later on confirmed by Deputy Custodian under section 16 of the said Ordinance by his order dated 9-2-1951. Property-in-question was purchased by Federal Government from the said Fredrick Sidney Cotton on 4-7-1961. Litigation regarding status of property remained pending and this Court in C.P. No,D-748 of 2005 on August 12, 1992 passed the following order:-- "Consequently we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Chairman, who is required to perform his statutory duty and act in accordance with order of the Revisional Authority by giving findings with reasons separately on each of the points raised in the said order. The petitioner stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs."
2. After the order was passed by the High Court Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board on 24-3- 1998 passed the following order:-- "---I, therefore, declare the property in question to be evacuee trust property and all its subsequent sales/transactions are declared to be void and illegal. Let a notification of trust nature of the property in-question be published in the official Gazette. The Deputy Administrator, ETP, Karachi is directed to take over management of the property in-question."
3. Revision petition against this order was filed by Collector Customs and Central Excise. This petition was dismissed and order of the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board was confirmed by Secretary, Ministry of Minorities Affairs Government of Pakistan as communicated vide letter dated 9-6-2007.
4. It was pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff and defendants were related to each other and plaintiff allowed defendant No,1 to look after affairs and interest of plaintiff in the property. Plaintiff pleaded himself to be a legal heir of K.B. Aslami. In this regard he executed a General Power of Attorney on 12-7-1993. It was further stated that brother of plaintiff K.B. Aslami son of Abdul Karim was enjoying possession of ground floor on the plot as tenant of Evacuee Trust Property Board. After death said K.B. Aslami and his widow, plaintiff was enjoying possession of Eastern portion of ground of premises and his brother was in possession of Western portion of ground floor of premises. It was further stated that in 1993 plaintiff went to USA and in his absence gave a power of attorney to the present applicants and when he came back the applicants flatly refused to vacate the property.
Consequently, suit was filed with following prayer;-- "(i) To declare that the defendant No,1 being Attorney of plaintiff (vide Annexure 'A' hereto) turn dishonst and delivered/handed-over the possession of said Premises/ Eastern Portion of Ground Floor Premises on Plot No, JM-II/16, (OLD No, 229) Bahadur Yar Jang Road, Guru Mandir Karachi to her daughter/defendant No,2 instead of plaintiff.
(ii) Decree for possession of said Premises/Eastern Portion of Ground Floor Premises on Plot No .JM- II/16 , (Old No,229) Bahadur Yar fang Road, Guru Mandir Karachi directing the defendants or anybody else claiming through or under them to deliver and hand over said premises to the plaintiff. ,
(iii) To direct the defendants to pay amounting to Rs,29,50,000 as damages, as mentioned above to the plaintiff.
(iv) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men servants, subordinates and any other person or persons on their behalf from transferring/handing over possession of the said Premises/ Eastern Portion of Ground Floor Premises on Plot No,JM-H/16, (Old No, 229) Bahadur Yar Jang Road, Guru Mandir Karachi to any other person except the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever nature."
5. Written statement was filed by the present respondents. Thereafter evidence was recorded and trial Court vide order dated 15-3-2008 decreed the suit to the extent of possession only. Being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court present applicants filed appeal before the appellate Court, that appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court vide order dated 17-7-2009. Hence this revision application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that property is an Evacuee Trust Property and its possession was regularized by Evacuee Trust Property Board by letter dated 13-9-2007. He further submitted that although power of attorney was admitted but the power of attorney did not specify the property. Learned counsel relied upon Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700 to contend that power of attorney must be strictly construed and it is necessary to show that on a fair construction of the whole instrument the authority in question may be found within the four corners of the instrument either in express terms or by necessary implication. Learned counsel also relied upon Wali Muhammad v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others PLD 1989 Lahore 440 in this regard, learned counsel further relied upon Malik Muhammad Khaqan v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi (KPT) and another 2008 SCMR 428 to contend that concurrent findings of facts by the Court below can be interfered with by the High Court when findings of facts are contrary to evidence and material on record or against law. It was further held by the Honourable Supreme Court that if Revisional Court finds any violation of provision of law or ignorance of law by the Court below then it is vested within the authority to set aside concurrent findings.
7. Learned counsel for respondent stated that he has not claimed ownership. He only claimed possession. He also referred to documents in this regard.
8. I have considered submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
9. Bedrock of case of applicants is a letter dated 13-9-2007 issued by Deputy Administrator Evacuee Trust Property Board. This letter was issued tc the present applicants. Letter states that competent authority has regularized their (present applicants) possession over portion of this property near Guru Mander, Karachi.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent firstly, referred to power of attorney. He stated that very opening words of power of attorney are that power of attorney is given by the present respondent residing at the address of property in-question in favour of present applicant No,1 who was stated to be residing at an address in Khudadad Colony, Karachi. Learned counsel stated that power of attorney is signed by present applicant No,1. Learned counsel further submitted that even if property was not specified in the power at least to the extent of address of parties power of attorney being an admitted document is conclusive evidence. Thereafter learned counsel referred to an order passed by 3rd Judicial Magistrate Karachi East on 18-5-1995. This was an order passed on application under section 145, Cr.P.C. Relevant part of order in following:--- "But on enquiry through police it has become clear that in one portion Asmat Pasha Karim was residing while in other portion of the disputed premises Nasim Bashir and others were residing being an attorney of Munawar Pasha Karim real brother of Asmat Pasha Karim. It is also admitted in the written statement of IInd party."
11. It may be fruitful to refer to evidence. In evidence of plaintiff it was admitted that property in- question was Evacuee Trust Property and was a Mandar property commonly known as Guru Mandar. He denied that Judicial Magistrate had forced the parties to compromise. He admitted that it was not property of K.B. Aslami. He admitted that he had not mentioned specific number of property in power of attorney. He also admitted that he had not mentioned as to what portion of property was left by K.B. Aslami and as to what portion he claimed. He admitted that on September, 2007 Mst. Nasreen Bashi' deposited some amount with Evacuee Trust Property Board. He admitted that Mst. Nasreen Bashir and present applicant No,2 deposited rent in respect of the property with Evacuee Trust Property Board. Witness of present respondent entered in witness box. She admitted that she is not daughter of K.B. Aslami, She admitted that she had not mentioned that she came in possession of property after death of K.B. Aslami.
12. Learned counsel for applicants referred to letter dated 9-6-2007 and pointed out that this letter was sent by the Assistant Administrator not to present applicants but to K.B. Aslami and he also referred to the order passed by the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board and stated that in that order K.B. Aslami was stated as a party.
13. These are all the questions of facts and learned counsel for applicants has not been able to point out as to what misreading and non-reading of evidence has taken place and as to what provision of law has been ignored by the Courts below or orders have been passed by the Court below in violation of as to which provision of law. Contention of learned counsel for respondent appearing to carry weight for the following reasons:-
(i) Address of respondent is stated as that of property in-question in the power of attorney and address of present applicants is stated as a different address.
(ii) There is specific findings by the Judicial Magistrate which finding have not been challenged so far.
(iii) In the order passed by the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board legal heirs of K.B. Aslami have been stated and applicants have not been pleaded that as to how they became legal heirs of K.B. Aslami.
(iv) Letter dated 9-4-2007 clearly indicates that it was written by Administrator to K.B. Aslami.
(v) Letter dated 13-9-2007 it was submitted by learned counsel for respondent was firstly obtained after suit had been filed and secondly it is a manipulated document which he stated that he has not challenged because of the pendency of present matter.
14. For the above reasons this Civil Revision Application No,132 of 2009 is dismissed.