' SHAHID KARIM, J. This Constitutional petition lays a challenge to the judgment dated 16.01.2007 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Lodhran as also the judgment dated 17.5.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Lodhran. By the judgments of the Courts below, an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel.For the petitioner submits that the Courts below ha've proceeded to render the impugned judgments without taking into account the documents which were produced in evidence by the parties and have not resolved the controversy by appreciating the real issue which formed the nub in the application under Section 12(2), CPC brought by the petitioner herein.
3. The historical facts are that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell dated 07.01.1989. This agreement to sell was with regard to proprietary rights which were acquired by Raja Ghulam Mustafa, respondent No. 1 vide document No. 478 and registered in his name on 29.4.1992. In pursuance of this agreement to sell dated 7.1.1989, registered sale-deed No. 448 dated 02.05.1992 was registered in the name of the petitioner herein and a mutation No. 121 dated 13.5.1992 was also sanctioned in pursuance. Thereof. Parallel to these events, there were certain other events taking place between the respondent No. 1 and respondents No.
3. Purportedly an agreement was entered into between respondent No. 1 and 3 on 11.03.1989. On 18.11.1990 a suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent No.
3. On 15.12.1990 the said suit was decreed on the statement of an alleged attorney of respondent No.
1. It has been brought forth that as a result of this statement, a judgment and decree was passed by the civil Court on 15.12.1990. As a result of this decree, mutation in the name of the petitioner was cancelled but the registered sale-deed No. 448 dated 02.05.1992 is still intact to this day. To complete the narration of facts, as a consequence of the decree passed on 15.12.1990, registered sale-deed No. 280 dated 23.7.1993 was executed in favour of the respondents, which, too, was sought to be set aside.
4. The respondents have been served according to the report of the process server. Sardar Tariq Sher Khan has filed his power-of-attorney on behalf of the respondent No. 2, 3, 3-A to 3-I. The rest of the respondents are proceeded against ex parte. Respondent No. 1 is the original owner of this property and has chosen not to appear and defend the instant petition.
5. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent No. 1 Raja Ghulam Mustafa who was the original owner of the property has, in the written reply submitted to the application under Section 12(2), CPC, admitted to the claim made in the said application and agreed that the impugned decree dated 15.12.1990 had been procured fraudulently and by misrepresentation. He denied that he had ever appointed any one as his attorney to make the said . Statement, which formed the basis of the decree. In his evidence as AW.3, the respondent No. 1 reiterated his stance taken in the reply to the application and further stated that he had, upon coming to know about the decree, filed an application to have it set aside as having been procured fraudulently. Subsequently, respondent No 1 absented himself from the proceedings before the Trial court and was proceeded against ex parte.
6. The following issues were framed by the Trial Court out of the pleadings of the parties:-
(1) Whether the petition is not competent in the present form? OPR-3.
(2) Whether the impugned decree dated 15.12.1990 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and is to be cancelled? OPA.
(3) Relief
7. On behalf of the petitioner/applicant, Muhammad Hayat appeared as AW.1, Muhammad Younis and Ghulam Mustafa appeared as AW.2 and AW.3 respectively. Documentary evidence was also produced by the applicant in the form of agreement to sell Ex.A.1, registered sale-deed Ex.A.2, copy of decree Ex.A.3, copy of statement of Makhnan Ex.A.4, copy of the judgment/order Ex.A.5 and lastly the copy of the grant of proprietary rights Ex.A.6. The respondents, on the other hand, did not produce any evidence and appeared himself as RW.1. By way of dncumentary evidence, he produced copy of Register Haqciaran Zamin as Ex.R.1, copy of sale-deed Ex.R 2 and copy of mutation No 15 Ex.R4.
8. Issue No, 2 was the pivotal issue between the parties and both the Courts below have returned a finding in favour of the respondents on the said issue.
9. I have gone through the impugned Judgments and it can at once be discerned from a reading of the impugned judgments that the Courts below have proceeded on the basis that there was only an agreement sell dated 07.01.1989 between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 and which formed the basis for the claim in the instant application under Section 12(2), CPC to have the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1990 set aside. Clearly, the Courts below have fallen in palpable error while relying upon Ex.A.1 only. The finding on this aspect of the Courts below is fallacious and is without lawful authority. By doing so, the Courts below have completely ignored the document of registered sale-deed dated 02.05.1992 brought on record as Ex.A.2 which is a registered sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. Not a word has been said in the impugned judgments regarding this document which has been conveniently ignored by the Courts below. Therefore, the entire basis of the impugned judgments which proceeded on the ground that a claim on the basis of an agreement to sell was not sustainable, fails to the grounds.
10. Another important fact which ought to have weighed with the Courts below that the original allottee of the proprietary rights Raja Ghulam Mustafa respondent No. 1 had clearly filed a reply and made a statement endorsed and supporting the case of the petitioner. This has been, in my opinion, was a substantial one and due weight ought to have been given to the fact that Raja Ghulam Mustafa had not supported the impugned judgment and decree which was sought to be set aside. The Courts below further did not advert to another important aspect viz. The speed and alacrity with which the suit was conceded and a decree was passed should have been a cause of concern for the Courts below and should have compelled them to look at the application under Section 12(2), CPC with more care. This unfortunately was not done by the Courts below. It will be noticed that the suit was filed on 18.11.1990 and was decreed on 15.12.1990 and that too on the statement of a purported power-of-attorney holder for respondent No. 1 which attorney was denounced by the respondent No. 1 in his reply filed and statement made as AW.3. In matters relating to sale and purchase of immovable property, the role of an attorney has always been looked upon with suspicion and skepticism by the Courts. It was obligatory upon the Courts below to have made fuller enquiry regarding the authenticity of the alleged attorney. It is beyond comprehension as to why a decree was necessary to be passed in haste upon statement of an attorney when the attendance of the original allottee, Raja Ghulam Mustafa could easily be procured. Even at the subsequent stage while adjudicating application under Section 12(2) CPC, the Courts below dealt with the matter cursorily and without regard to factors which cast a shadow on the bona fide of the decree dated 15.12.1990. The duty cast upon Courts in the construction of the power-of-attorney granting power to concede and compromise a suit and to alienate a property and the recitals to that effect contained in that power-of attorney, in particular, have been summarized in the following words in Fida Muhammad v. Pir Muhammad Khan and others (PLD 1985 SC 341):--- It is wrong to assume that every " general" Power-ofAttorney on account of the said description, means and includes the power to alienate/dispose of property of the principal. In order to achieve that object it must contain a clear separate clause devoted to the said object. The draftsman must pay particular attention to such a clause if intended to be included in the Powerof-Attorney with a view to avoid any uncertainty or vagueness. Implied authority to alienate property, would not be readily deducible from words spoken or written which do not clearly convey the principal's knowledge, intention and consent about the same. The Courts have to be vigilant particularly when the allegation by the principal is of fraud and/or misrepresentation.
' The second aspect which needs caution on question of validity of acts under a Power-of- Attorney is pat notwithstanding an authority to alienate principal's property, the Attorney is not absolved from his two essential obligations, amongst others:--- ---firstly, in cases of difficulty (and it will be a case of difficulty if the Power-of-Attorney is susceptible to doubt about its interpretation ) to use all reasonable diligence in communicating with the principal and seeking to obtain his instructions, and ---secondly, if the agent deals on his own account with the property under agency, e.g., if he purchases it himself or for his own benefit, he, in his own interest, should obtain the consent of the principal in that behalf after acquainting him with all material circumstances on the subject, failing which the principal is at liberty to repudiate the transaction."
' These views have been affirmed and reiterated in Haji Faqir Muhammad and others v. Pir Muhammad and another (1997 SCMR 1811) and Muhammad Yousuf Siddiqui v. Haji Sharif Khan through L.Rs. And others (PLD 2005 SC 705).
11. The Courts below have, in fact, been swayed by the fact that upon coming to know regarding the filing of the suit, the petitioner had made an application for being impleaded as a party which was rejected and the appeal against that order was also dismissed. However, no application to this effect has been brought on record. It is highly improbable that such an application could have been made since the period between the institution of the suit and this decree was very short.
Moreover, the filing of such an application or its rejection (to which no proof has been adduced) does not preclude the petitioner to file an application under Section 12(2), CPC nor does it take away his right to pursue the remedy which is available to him under law.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a number of judgments viz. Eden Developers Ltd. v. NAB and others (PLD 2011 Lahore 48), Dilawar Ali Khan through his legal heirs etc. v. Mrs. Zohra Javed etc. (PLJ 1996 Karachi 874), Syed Qamar Ahmed and another v. Anjum Zafar and others (1994 SCMR 65), Sher Muhammad and others v. Khawaja Mazhar (2009 YLR 1609), Sikandar Hayat and 4 others v. Master Fazal Karim (PLD 1971 Supreme Court 730), Muhammad Abdullah v. Muhammad Aslam (2014 CLC 1205) and Dilawar Khan v. Mst. Badshah Zadi and another (PLD 2011 Peshawar 208). However, it is not necessary to deal with these judgments since they are not related to the controversy in hand.
13. For what has been stated above, the instant petition is allowed and the judgments of the Courts below are set aside and as a consequence thereof the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1990 is also set aside. The civil suit shall be deemed pending and decided within six months from the receipt of this judgment.
2015 C.L.R. 1500 [Lahore] Preset. MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.
Province of Punjab, etc. Versus Tariq Masood Chaudhary, etc. C.R. No. 156 of 2013, decided on 17th March, 2015.
CONCLUSION
(1) An order is to be treated as void only when it is made by a Court, Tribunal, or other authority, which had no jurisdiction either as regards the subject-matter, the pecuniary value or the territorial limits where the dispute arose. ALLOTMENT --- (Title dispute) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---S. 115---Specific Relief Act, 1877, Ss. 54/56---Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975---Settlement and Rehabilitation Act, 1958, Ss. 10, 11--Allotment---Title dispute--- Suit for perpetual mandatory injunction---Issues---Trial Court decreed suit which determination was upheld by Appellate Court below---Pleadings and evidence---Evidently Custodian decided to allot evacuee land to Forest Department---Allotment in favour of mentioned persons was cancelled on 4.9.1979 and respondents became the owner of suit land on 30.6.1992 through said mutation---Respondents had not challenged cancellation order nor they amended their plaint claiming that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice---From said documents possession of respondents was not established but it was established their names were shown in the column of ownership---After attesting the mutation in favour of respondents names of respondents were entered in column of ownership but the kind of land remained "jungle", hence respondents' possession was not proved---Moreover, at relevant time, disputed land was not part of compensation pool, hence it could not be allotted to any one, the initial order in favour of mentioned persons was not valid or legal---Petitioners had successfully proved that suit land was a jungle allotted to Forest Department, predecessor-ininterest of respondents, no doubt, was allotted land but same was cancelled and that cancellation was still operative and had not been, set aside---Impugned judgments/decrees were set aside---Civil revision /Suit dismissed.
(Paras 8, 9, 10)
Ref: PLD 1975 SC 331.
[Subject land was not part of compensation pool, therefore, allotment order in favour of said person was not legal. Civil revision petition was allowed and suit for permanent injunction was dismissed].
For the Petitioners: Malik Abdul Aziz Awan, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Respondents: Sardar Abdul Majeed Dogar Advocate and Iram Jawad Chaudhary, Advocates.
Date of hearing: 17th March, 2015.
' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J. --- The respondents filed a suit against the petitioners for perpetual mandatory injunction with consequential relief praying as under:--- "In view of the submissions made above, it is most humbly prayed that a decree for 'permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in to the lawful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, in any manner and also cutting down the trees and taking the same from the suit land detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint, in any manner. May kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants with costs".
' The petitioners filed written statement and controverted the respondents' assertions and raised the objection that an earlier suit titled Muhammad Hussain v. Province of Punjab, etc. Qua the same property was finally decided when the plaint of earlier suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 16.5.1990. It was further asserted that the Forest department has purchased the suit land from Settlement & Rehabilitation Department and as such the respondents have no concern what so ever with the suit land. The learned Trial Court, out of divergent pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:- "ISSUES:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit property? OPP
(2) Whether the claim of the previous owner of the suit property was sanctioned/verified by the competent Rehabilitation authority? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hand? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiffs have no local standi to file the present suit? OPD
(5) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hit by principle of res judicata? OPD
(6) Whether the disputed land was reserved for forest department and thus could nut be allotted?
OPD
7. Relief".
' Both the parties adduced their respective evidence. The learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.10.2011 decreed the suit. The petitioners filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2011. The learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.10.2012 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the Civil Revision.
2. Malik Abdul Aziz Awan, learned Additional Advocate General submits that Custodian of Evacuee Property vide letter No. CEP/1824 dated 10.2.1948 allotted land measuring 148 Acres, and 7 Kanals situated at Pairra, Tehsil Pasroor District Sialkot to Forest department, the land measuring 148 Acres 7 Kanals includes the suit land as well, Respondent No. 2 finally purchased the above land on 20.1.1965 from Settlement & Rehabilitation Authorities against valuable consideration. The learned Courts below have failed to appreciate that petitioner become the owner of land on 10.2.1948 and as such the suit land came out of the compensation pool. Sultan Muhammad and Ramzan both sons of Karim Bakhsh, fraudulently managed the allotment of land measuring 136 Kanals, 7 Marlas from Settlement & Rehabilitation Department in their favour. As soon as the fact of fraudulent and illegal allotment transfer came in to the notice of petitioner Forest department, they filed application under Sections 10-11 of the Settlement & Rehabilitation Act, 1958. The then Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 04.9.1979 cancelled the land from the name of Sultan Muhammad and Ramzan both sons of Kareem Bakhsh. Sultan Muhammad and Ramzan and all the subsequent purchasers including the respondents have not assailed the order dated 04.9.1979 till today, hence the order dated 4.9.1979 attained finality Inspite of the cancellation of the land from the name of M/s. Sultan Muhammad and Ramzan they sold the land measuring 100 Kanals to Muhammad Hussain s/o Veeru. Muhammad Hussain filed a suit for permanent injunction titled Muhammad Hussain v. Province of Punjab, etc. The plaint of which was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 16.5.1990, the order dated 16.5.1990 remained unchallenged, hence it attained finality.
The respondents inspite of the knowledge of the cancellation of suit land from the name of Sultan Muhammad and Ramzan purchased the suit land from Muhammad Hussain in the year 1992 and got the mutation attested in his favour at No. 95 on 30.6.1992 with the collusion of revenue staff, as the land was cancelled in the year 1979, the respondents have not acquired any valid and legal title and interest in the suit property, the suit thus was not maintainable. The impugned judgments and decrees are illegal and is an outcome of misreading a 'd non reading of record. The findings on issues No. 1 and 2 are against the facts. The learned Courts below have failed to appreciate that the respondents are not the owners of suit land nor they are in its possession.
3. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the respondents' predecessor-in-interest Sultan Muhammad and Ramzan were allotted land measuring 136 Kanals 7 Marlas against their verified claim on 15.12.1964 as per their entitlement. The allottees i.e. Sultan Muhammad and Ramzan sold the land to Muhammad Hussain who further sold the suit land to respondents who are in peaceful physical possession of the suit land. The respondents have become the owner of the suit land in execution of a decree 17.6.1992 and mutation in their favour was attested at No. 95 on 30.6.1992, the decree and mutation have not been set aside or cancelled by any competent Court of law so far, hence, the learned Courts below have rightly decreed the suit in their favour. Learned counsel further submits that after the repeal of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act of 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Repeal Act.), the Chief Settlement Commissioner has no authority and jurisdiction to cancel the land except where there is allegation of fraud in the transfer or allotment of land that too through civil Court. Learned counsel for respondents has relied on Pakistan Transport Company Ltd. v. Walayat Khan through Legal Heirs (2002 SCMR 1470), Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Mahmood Shah (1991 SCMR 1426), Masooda Begum through Legal Heirs v.
Government of Punjab through Secretary Forest, Lahore and 9 others (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 90) and The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Mohammad Fazil Khan and others (PLD 1975 Supreme Court 331).
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. It is an admitted fact that the suit land is an evacuee land. On 15.12.1964 land measuring 136 Kanal, 7 Marla was allotted to M/s. Sultan Muhammad and Ramzan both sons of Kareem Bakhsh at Khata No. 17 of RL-Il (Exh.P-1), the said allottees sold the land to Muhammad Hussain s/o Veeru who sold the land to respondents through a decree and the respondents become the owners of land measuring 100 Kanals (hereinafter referred to as the Suit Land) vide mutation No. 95 attested on 30.6.1992 in execution of decree passed against Muhammad Hussain. The respondents' suit was a suit for perpetual injunction and the respondents were praying a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering in their lawful possession over the suit land and to refrain from cutting down the trees. The respondents have not prayed for declaration of ownership of the suit land as their claim is that they are the owners of suit land. It is the respondents who raised the objection that respondents are not the owners of the suit land and that is the reason the Learned Trial Court framed issue No. 1 and 2 and the onus to prove the above two issue was placed on petitioners, the petitioners have examined Forest Officer Pasroor as DW-1 who deposed that Custodian of Evacuee Property allotted suit land to Forest department in the year 1948, the Forest department after huge plantation an the allotted land established a Forest after investing substantial money, the Forest department is owner of suit land and suit land is in its possession, in 1955 the suit property was Notified as Forest, the Forest Department filed an application before Chief Settlement Commissioner for cancellation of allotment of suit land from the name of Sultan Mehmood and Ramzan, the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 4.9.1979 cancelled the allotment from the name of Sultan Mehmood and Ramzan, the trees on the suit property are 50/60 years old, the Forest under the name of Rachna Doaab Project is in the possession of Army and the petitioners are its owners. In cross-examination he admits that it is correct the suit property was allotted to Sultan Mehmood and Ramazan at RL-II on 15.12.1964, when the department came to know about the said allotment they filed an application under Section 10/11 of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Laws, the Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment in the year 1979, he has not seen the revenue record, he denied the respondents possession on suit land, he deposed that it is wrong to suggest that Custodian has not allotted the suit property to petitioner in 1948. He placed on record documents Ex.D-1 Policy CEP/1824 dated 10.2.1948, Ex.D2 minutes of meeting dated 29.6.1965, Ex.D-3 Sanction/permission of Government of West Pakistan to purchase property dated 20.7.1965, Ex.D-4 mutation No. 391 dated 3.7.1966 EX.D-5 Certificate of payment of price of the property minutes of meeting dated 4.10.1979, Ex-D-7 Letter from Board of Revenue to Deputy Commissioner's of the province. Ex.D 8 the cancellation order dated 4.9.1979 of Chief Settlement Commissioner. From the above-said documents it is established that Custodian decided to altot evacuee land to Forest department but specific Transfer order is not in possession of the petitioner except a certificate ot Divisional Forest Officer Sialkot Forest Division confirming that Foy-A department has paid Rs. 229,460/- and Rs. 2,140,924/- through two Cheques to the Chief Settlement Commissioner West Pakistan on 27.6.1970 and 29.6.1974. Ex D-8 however confirms that Forest Department in terms of letter CEP/1824 dated 11.2.1948 has paid the price of 1271 Kanals, 14 Marlas, land at the rate of R. 141 per PIU through two Cheques referred to above, out ot the and allotted to Forest department on 15.12.1967 {{BLUR PAGE}} il-)opuy Settlement Commissioner allotted land rriasuring 136 Kanals, 7 Marla o the name of L Sultan Muhammad and Raman both sins of Kareem Bakhsh against their vorified claim. The Chief Settlement Commissioner passed the following order on 4.7.1979:- The respor.Cent, relyi-,9 or ise, allotmersi of Sultan Muharrs.,:,Ad and but the claimed that are boria Tide ft..:rohaF-c... For vclutJ notice. Whereas it is provers fact on ret.:orci that ,-Oot'nen.s. Fvaour of Sultan Muhammad and Ramzan was 4.9.1979 and the respondents admittedly become the owner of suit land on 30.6.1992 through mutation No. 95. {{BLUR PAGE}}
6. Now the question is what is the effect of cancellation of the allotment of Sultan Muhammad and Ramzan? It is an admitted fact that order dated 4.9.1979 is an ex parte order and it came into the knowledge of the respondents when the respondent filed the written statement but it is an admitted fact that respondents have not challenged the order dated 4.9 1979 till today nor they amended their plaint claiming that they are bona fide purchaser for value without notice. No doubt order dated 04.9.1979 is an ex parte order but it will remain operative unless set aside. In The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Mohammad Fazil Khan and others (PLD 1975 Supreme Court 331) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:--- "The first question which arises in this connection is whether an order obtained by practicing fraud on the Court, tribunal or authority concerned is a void order or only voidable. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Waheeduddin Ahmed, J., in the case of Ali lqtidar Shah Dana, that an order obtained by fraud id not void, but only voidable. It remains operative as long as it is not set aside, rescinded, or recalled, by .a competent authority in proper proceedings. An order is to be treated as void only when it is made by a Court, Tribunal, or other authority, which had no jurisdiction either as regards the subject-matter, the pecuniary value or the territorial limits where the dispute arose. Such an order would amount to "susurpation of power unwarranted by law", and accordingly it would be a nullity. If, on the other hand, an order is made by a Court or authority having the necessary jurisdiction, it is not an order void ab initio, but an order which may be set aside on sufficient cause being shown in this behalf. While it is true, as has been so often stated, that fraud vitiates all proceedings, it must nevertheless, be borne in mind that allegations of fraud generally raise mixed question of law and fact which can only be established in an elaborated inquiry. It is for this reason that an order obtained by fraud can be regarded as only being voidable at the instance of any party adversely affected by it".
7. As far as the possession of the suit land is concerned the respondents have failed to establish on record their possession, as is evident from Khasra Girdawry Exh.P-1 and Exh.P-2 which shows that suit land is Jungle. Exh.P-3 is copy of Jamma Bandi which shows that respondents are the owners of suit property but the kind of land is "Chair Mumkin Jungle". Exh.P-5 is the mutation No. 95 attested on 17.5.1992, Exh.P-6 is a mutation attested in favour of Muhammad Hussain, the respondents' vendor, Exh.P-7 is a copy of Jamma Bandi which shows that Muhammad Hussain was the owner of suit land. From the above-said documents the possession of the respondents is not established but it is established their names are shown in the column of ownership.
8. All the above-said documents show that after attesting the mutation in favour of respondents the name of respondents was entered in column of ownership but the kind of land remained "jungle", hence the respondents' possession is not proved.
9. As far as issue No. 2 "whether the claim of the previous owner of the suit property was sanctioned/verified by the competent Rehabilitation authority, is concerned, at the relevant time the land was not the part of compensation pool, hence it could not be allotted to any one, the initial order in favour of Sultan Muhammad and Ramzan both sons of Karim Bukhsh was not valid or legal as discussed above.
10. The upshot of the above-said discussion is that the petitioners have successfully proved that the suit land is a jungle allotted to Forest department, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents, no doubt was allotted the land but the same was cancelled and that cancellation is still operative and has not been set aside. The Civil Revision succeeds and the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below dated 19.10.2011 and 13,10.2012 are set aside and the respondents' suit is dismissed. Civil revision /Suit dismissed.