MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J. -- The respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction alongwith consequential relief against the petitioners claiming that they are the transferee of property No. 35-B, Model Town, Lahore, they are in possession of the property since 1948, the property was finally transferred in favour of their predecessor-in-interest (Mst.
Munawar Zamani Begum) vide PTD No. 690, dated 20.8.1962 by the Settlement Department. The respondents are living in Karachi and England, the property remained in possession of the tenants upto 1970, taking advantage of the absence of the respondents the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners tried to take forcible possession of the suit property, the respondents coming to know about the illegal act of petitioners' predecessor-in-interest' immediately filed the suit. The respondents further averred that according to their information the petitioners' predecessor-in- interest has also filed an application with the Model Town Cooperative Housing Society for admitting him the member of the society on the basis of a forged and fraudulent document, hence a decree for declaration was prayed praying that the alleged title document in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners qua the suit property be declared bogus, fraudulent and without lawful authority.
2. The petitioners predecessor-in-interest filed writ" n statement and raised number of objections. It was averred that temporary allotment document of the suit property was issued in his favour on 04.7.1949 by the then Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, whereafter the petitioners' predecessor- in-interest filed NCH form of the suit property on 10.11.1959 vide receipt No. LHR-v/247-NCH and on the basis of NCH form the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore issued PTO of the suit property under Scheme No. 1 on 09.04.1960 bearing No. 4746110 in favour of predecessor-in-interest of petitioners, after making the full payment the Settlement Department on 24.09.1962 issued in favour of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, the respondents have not applied for becoming the members of the Model Town Cooperative Housing Society, it is the petitioners' predecessor-in- interest who applied for becoming member of the Model Town Cooperative Housing Society in the year 1987 and his case is pending before the society.
3. Model Town Cooperative Housinb Society filed independent written statement and submitted that one Masood Ahmad Baqai filed copy of PTD No. 690 issued on 20.8.1962 being the title document of the suit property in the year 1987, the society referred the said PTD to Settlement Department for verification on 20.1.1987, however the verification report has not been received to the society uptill the filing of the suit. It Was further admitted that the petitioners' predecessor-in- interest has also ,filed an application for becoming member Of the society on the basis of document of PTD.
4. The learned Trial Court, out of divergent pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:--- "ISSUES:
1. Whether the suit is bad, for non-joinder of the necessary parties? OPD Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD Whether the suit is not correctly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction, if so what is the correct valuation? OPD
5. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD
6. Whether the suit is barred under Section 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act? OPD
7. Whether the suit is not maintainable against defendant No. 2 for non-service of notice? OPD
8. Whether the disputed property was lawfully transferred to Mst. Munawar Zamani Begun and the subsequent P.T.O. in favour of the defendant No. 1 in result of fraud and is void? OPP
9. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the disputed property, if so, are they entitled to the decree as prayed for? OPP
10. Relief"
Both the parties adduced their respective evidence and the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.07.1994 decreed the suit in favour of respondents. The petitioners filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05.07.1994 which too was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2003, hence the present Civil Revision.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, the Settlement Department was a necessary party to the suit as it is only the Settlement Department who can declare which of the PTD is genuine one. Further after repeal of the Settlement Laws Provincial Government is also necessary party but the respondent have failed to implead both the parties to the suit. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners' PTD was declared bogus by the Settlement Department without holding any inquiry and as such the Settlement Department was necessary party on every account. Further submits that the judgments of two Courts below suffer from misreading and non-reading of record. The learned Courts below have fallen in error while relying on a document Exh.D1/8 that the word bogus has been written on the register of issuance of PTD. Learned counsel submits that the judgments of two Courts below are liable to be set aside and the case should be remanded to the Settlement Department for ascertaining the real facts and deciding the fact of genuineness of the PTD and other title documents. Learned counsel submits that petitioners have filed C.M. No. 1395-C/2006 for allowing additional documentary evidence and the petitioners may be allowed to get exhibit the documents mentioned in the application. Learned counsel submits that petitioners at the time of trial could not place on record the documents which are necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties. Learned counsel for petitioners has relied on Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others (2010 SCMR 1630), Basal v. Qaim Ali and 8 others (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 325), WAPDA through Chairman v. Sharafat Hussain and others (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 336), Muhammad Usman v. Abdul Razzak and 3 others (1997 MLD 472), Muhammad Ishaque v. Rashid Ahmad and others (2011 YLR 1926), Mst. Mumtaz Beaum and another v.
Settlement Commissioner, diahora and 6 others (1986 MLD 1001), Khawaia Gul Muhammad v. LaI Hussain and others (1984 SCMR 1409), Mst. Zulaikhan Bibi through LRs and others v. Mst. Roshan Jan and others (2011 SCMR 986), Rehmatullah and others v. Saleh Khan and others (2007 .SCMR 729), Muhammad Feroze and others v. Muhammad Jamaat Ali (2006 SCMR 1304), Mst. Sharman and 11 others v. Syed Ali Hussain and 8 others (2006 YLR 130).
6. Learned counsel for respondents supports the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below and submits that the petitioners' own witness D.W-1 has categorically admitted that PTD in possession of petitioners is bogus and the record of the same is not available in the Settlement Department. Learned counsel for respondents has referred the statement of petitioners' predecessor-in -interest Fakhar-ud-Din Butt who specifically admitted that when his possession was disturbed he never filed application with the police for his dispossession nor he filed any suit for retrieval of possession from the respondents. Further admits that he has not filed any suit against the respondents for cancellation of PTD in their favour nor filed any suit against the Settlement Department for setting aside the order of declaring the PTD as bogus. Learned counsel 'submits that petitioner has failed to produce on record PTD in his favour, even alleged NCH Form of petitioner is not available in Settlement record according to the statement of CW-1 and CW-2.
Learned counsel thus submits that judgments of two Courts below are perfectly in accordance with law. Learned counsel for respondents has relied on Sagheer Muhammad Khan and 5 others v.
Member (Judicial-V), Board of Revenue, Punjab and 4 others (2009 YLR 1255), Sultan Hassan Khan and 2 others v. Mst. Nasim Jahan and 17 others (1994 SCMR 150), Ghafoor Bukhsh v. Hail Muhammad Sultan and others (2001 SCMR 398), Hamid Begum and others v. Province of Punjab through Collector and 4 others (2012 MLD 832),. Abdul Shakoor through General Power-of-Attorney v. Mst. Asghari Begum through Lrs. and others (2009 YLR 1435); Muhammad Siddique, etc. v.
Shahab Din, etc. (NLR 1991 Revenue 52), Zafarul Hassan Qureshi v. Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. and 6 others (1991 CLC 1580), Allah Ditta v. Additional District Judge, Chiniot and 3 others (1996 SCMR 1779), Mst Aziz Fatima" and others v. Abdul Hameed Farooqui and others (1976 SCMR 95), Muhammad Aslam and others v. Ehsan Elahi and others (2008 YLR 2138), Ejaz Muhammad Khan and others v. Mst. Sahib Bibi through Shahzad Khan and others (1996 SCMR 598), Noor Muhammad, etc. v. Mst. Sheran Bibi,
2. Mst. Jannat (NLR 1998 Civil 406), Suhbat Khan v. Mst.
Asmasa (PL 1985 Peshawar 11), Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher. and others (2000 SCMR 431),. Mst. ShumaLBegum v. Mst., Gulzar Begum and 3 others (1994 SCMR 818), Abdul Qayyum throuqh Legal Heirs v. Mushk-e-Alam and another (2001 SCMR 798), Nazir Ahmed through L.Rs. v.
Umra arid others (2002 SCMR 11.14), Mian Abdul Rashid v. Province of Punjab, through District Collector, Okara and another (PLD 2003 Lahore 389), Dilmir v. Ghulam Muhammad and. 2 others (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 403), Samar Gul and others v. Mohabat Khan and others (2000 SCMR 974), Muhammad Saleem Ullah and another v. Additional District Judge (Syed Nasir Ali Shah), Gujranwala and others (2003 YLR 998), Muhammad Rafi and another v. Sardar and another (1989 SCMR 455), Muhammad Bashir and 7 others v. Allah Rakha and another (1990 CLC 1715), Federation of Pakistan v. Manzoor Hussain (1992 MLD 1417), Wajid Ali v. United Bank Ltd. (PLD 1986 Lahore 148), Khan and others v. Province of Punjab through District Collector, Okara and others (2005 SCMR 1135), Ghulam Haider and others v. Dosa (1988 SCMR 1570), Hazrat Fazal Alim Jan v. Ziarat Committee, Mazar Hazrat Jeo ahib through Secretary, Ziarat Committee, Peshawar City and others (1997 SCMR 1824) and Mst. Mussarrat Bibi v. Taj Din and others (2005 SCMR 772).
7. Heard. Record perused.
8. The argument of learned counsel for petitioners that Settlement Department is a necessary party to the suit, is without any merit. The Settlement Department has issued PTD in favor of respondent and the allegation against the petitioner is that their PTD is fraudulent and bogus. The Court has called C.W-1 and C.W-2 who submitted the record and specifically stated that PTD issued in favour of respondents is genuine and is available in record whereas the 'petitioners' PTD Is not genuine document. In view of the above, the argument of learned counsel for petitioners has no force.
9. The main issues between the parties are issues No. 8 and 9. The case of petitioners is that PTD in favour of Fakhar-ud-Din Butt, their predecessor-in-interest, is genuine one and Fakhar-ud-Din Butt has paid the price of the suit property through his compensation book. Exh.D-1/8 is document placed on record by the Settlement Department which clearly Shows that there is CSC-V register No. 16/15 in the record room, however there is entry at page No. 1/52 of the Register in, the name of Fakhar-ud-Din and in register word "bogus" is written. On the back of this page Ex.D-1/8 a detail note of the competent authority available dated 25.1.1973 which is read as under:-- The entry in CSC-V Register at page No. 1/52 in the name of Fakhar-ud-Din Butt appears, to be bogus. The examination/scrutiny of the said page shows that this was a blank page Floyd entry to this effect existed like other page!, which at some stage was rubbed/removed, Not Only this but alto the signatures of the officer are paleolithic bogus. In Edition the page number i.e. 52 is ..also different. from the pen and handwriting as compared to the noting of number of other pages".
C.W-1 Patwari Record Room Settlement department appeared with record and in cross- examination in reply to respondents' counsel he replied as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} It is clear that Court itself after examining the record observed that in Register of issuance of PTO pages were removed. DM-1 who is Superintendent Record (Board of Revenue), Lahore produced by the petitioners, in cross-examination admitted that it is correct that line on Exh. D1/3 is attempted to be rubbed and after that entry was made on this page and that is the reason word "bogus" has been written on it. The Court itself has examined the register and made the following observations: -- The witness further admitted that it is correct that signatures on Exh.D-1/3 are bogus. According to the Settlement record the property is registered in the name or Mst. Zamani Begum, it was allotted to Zamani Begum and CH form of Zamani Begum is available on record, CH form is for "Claimant House" and NCH form is for "Non-Claimant House". Fakhar-ud-Din Butt himself appeared as D.W-2.
He deposed that the suit property was allotted to him in the year 1949 on his NCH form, he paid the price of suit property and PTD was issued to him. He deposed that he has taken the possession of the house but before 8/10 years the respondents forcibly dispossessed him. In cross-examination he specifically admitted as under-- {{URDU TEXT}} CW-1 is a Settlement Clerk, he deposed that there is no PTD available in the record, PTD in the name of Munawar Zaman Begum is available in CSC-F1/55 which is Exh.P-1 and is correct according to the record. Exh.D-1/5 is a register for issuance of PTD. In the said register at Sr. No. 1803 the name of Munawar Zamani Begum is written whereas the petitioner claims that his name is available a Sr.No.
247. Sr.No. 247 shows that the form of one Sharif Hussain son of Aziz-ud-Din has been mentioned and the property number has been mentioned as House No. 13, Street No. 120, Lahore, whereas at Sr.
No. 1603 the property number is mentioned as 35-B Model Town, Lahore. Exh.D1/6 further shows that the suit property was transferred to Mt. Munawar Zamani Begum.
10. The issue between the parties is about the transfer of property on the basis of document. The respondents are claiming the transfer of property on the basis of PTD. The transference department' is admitting that the document in possession of respondents was issued by the Settlement Department whereas the department is not owning the document in possession of petitioners. The petitioners have not filed any suit against the Settlement Department. Learned counsel for petitioners has relied on Exh.D-2/1 which is application for allotment of a house which he claims to be filed on 04.07.1949 but the said document is declared forged by the Settlement Department. Further no NCH form of petitioners' predecessor-in-interest is available in the record bf Settlement Department and admittedly the alleged PTD in favour of petitioners subsequent to the respondents' PTD. The above-said unrequited evidence establishes that the learned two Courts below were justified to decree the suit in favour of respondents. As far as the application of additional documentary evidence is concerned, all the documents, referred in the application were in possession of .the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, the petitioners have not relied upon these documents nor produced the same at the time of recording of evidence even the petitioners have filed the said application after three years of the filing of present petition.
The learned first Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the application. The application at the revision stage is thus without any merit, hence, dismissed.
11. The upshot of the above-said discussion is that this Civil Revision fails and is dismissed.