JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---We have heard the learned Law Officer of the Province and learned counsel for the respondents at length. We have also gone through the record.
2. According to the respondents/plaintiffs they became owners through adverse possession and prescription. In the plaint, it has been averred that one Durga Das and his wife Mst. Raj Rani were owners/occupants of the land but Durga Das died in the year 1951 and his wife Mst. Raj Rani left Pakistan for India in 1965. This is also what has been observed by the High Court in the impugned judgment dated 27-10-2000.
3. In the suit, following 5 issues were framed:- "(1) Whether the suit is incompetent in its present form? OPD
(2) Whether the court lacks jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of party? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff has acquired ownership of the property by adverse possession? OPD
(5) Relief".
4. We are clear that once the above averments had been made in the plaint, the plaintiffs were obliged to implead Durga Das and Mst. Raj Rani as defendants in the suit. Without them being impleaded as defendants, no possible decree for declaration of title can be passed in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that if adverse possession had matured into prescriptive title, there was no need for impleading anyone else including the aforesaid Durga Das and Mst. Raj Rani. Secondly, he argued that the cause of action accrued to the respondents/plaintiffs when the appellant Province issued a notice to the respondents to vacate the premises on 16-4-1980.
5. There can be no doubt that the respondents/plaintiffs could not have been granted a declatory decree for title because the real parties who could have objected to their claim of title had not been made parties. The decrees in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs are, therefore, void on this score alone because only the Collector, Sialkot has been impleaded as a defendant.
6. We have also noted that if indeed Mst. Raj Rani had stayed in Pakistan after partition and then later migrated to India in 1965, possibly under the Defense of Pakistan Rules, the Federation would have become vested with title because persons migrated to India were declared as enemy aliens and their property was to vest in the Federation. However, it is not necessary for us to embark upon adjudication as to whether the Province or the Federation are owners of the property. What is clear is that respondents/plaintiffs cannot be declared owners in the circumstances. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.