MUHAMMAD EJAZ SWATI, J.--- An evacuee pldt bearing Khasra No, 2378, measuring 1702 sq.ft. at Masjid Road, Quetta was allotted in favour of Abdul Karim (late) by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property , Quetta vide his allotment order dated 20th June, 1953 (the property in dispute), whereon a residential House bearing Municipal No, 2-20/3 Masjid Road, Quetta and two shops were constructed by late Abdul Kareem during 1953/54, under the approval plait issued by the Municipal Engineer , Quetta dated 4th September , 1953. Late Abdul Karim died during the month of December 1959. After the death of late Abdul Karim, one of his sons namely Raja Abdul Qadir rented out the property in dispute to one Abdul Wasay in the year 1962. In. the year 1964, the Custodian Department demanded the cost of the property and consequently put to auction. The tenant Abdul Wasay purchased the property in dispute in an open auction. Raja Muhammad Sabir (late) (predecessor -in-interest of the appellants No, 1 to 3) (defendants) filed an appeal before the learned Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Custodian Department), which was accepted and the property in dispute was transferred in favour of late Raja Muhammad Sabir vide order dated 18th January , 1971, instead of all the legal heirs of late Abdul Karee m. In the year 1992, the sons of late Abdul Kareem i,e, respondents (plaintif fs and predecessor-in-interest of appellants No, 1 to. 3) demolished the house and two shops and constructed nine (9) shops in the basement and 16 shops on the ground floor. The shops known as "Al-Qudoos Shopping Centre", while on upper storey constructed "Raja Hotel"
(property in dispute) as per approval plan of Municipal Committee. In January , 1997, late Raja Muhammad Sabir son of late Abdul Kareem made a mutual exchange of Raja Hotel and Al-Qudoos Shopping Centre with the house measuring 3.91 sq.ft. under Khasra. No, 77/3-79. Khewat No,
171. Khatooni No, 262 situated in Ward No, 31, Tappa Urban Tehsil and District, Quetta and a shop measuring 157-2/3 sq.ft. under Khasra No, 471/279-474/253 situated in Ward No,
34. Tappa Urban District, Quetta and also received Rs, 500,000/-(exchange in question) with the appellants No, 4 and 5 (defendants). The above exchange in question was challenged by the respondents No, I to 12 (plaintif fs) (predecessor-in-interest of late Abdul Kareem) by way of filing suit on 24th March; 2003 for declaration, cancellation of exchange in question, partition and mesne profit against the petitioners (defendants) and respondents No, 13 to 15 (defendants), wherein it was averted that the plaintif fs being legal heirs of late Abdul Kareem are co-sharers of the property in dispute and exchange in question arrived at between the predecessor-in- interest of the appellants No, I to 3 (defendants) with appellants No, 4 and 5 (defendants) and appellants No, 4 and 5 further sold the property in dispute to the respondent No, 13 (defendant) vide mutations No, 399 and 400 dated 20th January , 2000. It was further contended that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants No, 1 to 3 promised to provide share of the respondents (plaintif fs), but subsequently the claim was denied and claimed sole ownership of the property in dispute.'
2. The predecessor-in-interest of the appe llants No, 1 to 3 while contesting the suit filed by the plaintif fs contended that the property , in dispute was transferred on his name vide judicial order dated 18th January , 1971 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and being an exclusive owner made the exchange in question with the appellants No, 4 and 5, however , he also raised question that the appellants No, 4 and 5 (defendants), due to misinterpretation of registered rectificatio n deed dated 20th October , 1997 entered the exchange shop bearing Khasra No, 471/279/473/283 in the name of the appellant No, 4 Abdul Ali and thereafter the said property was transferred in the name of one Baz Muhammad.
3. The appellants No, 4 and 5 (defendan ts) and respondent No, 13 also contested the suit by way of filing written statement.
4. Out of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:--- "(i) Whether the suit is hopelessly barred by lime?
(ii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of provisions contained in Displaced Persons and Rehabilitation Act, 1958?
(iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of Sections 39, 42 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act?
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are shareholders in the property in dispute?
(v) Whether the exchange deed dated 01-01-97 is illegal. one?
(vi) Whether the transaction between defendants No, 4, 5 and 6 is illegal and void?
(vii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed for?
(viii) Relief?"
5. The parties produced their respective oral and documentary evidence. The learned Senior Civil Judge-1, Quetta (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court ") vide judgment dated 13th May, 2008, decreed the suit (hereinafter referred to as " the impugned judgment and decree ") in favour of the plaintif fs.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that plaintif fs had failed to prove that property in dispute was inherited; that the transfer deed was issued in favour of late Raja Sabir , in the year 1969 and entries in revenue record were also recorded in his favour; that neither the transfer deed nor mutations were challenged by the plaintif fs; that suit was hopelessly barred by time, but the findings of the Trial Court are silent in this regard; that plaintif fs being brother were permitted by late Raja Sabir to run business in the property in dispute on his behalf, which neither vests any right or title in their favour; that Raja Sabir being sole owner of the property in dispute entered into exchange with respondent Nos, 4 and 5 (appellants No, 4 and 5); that plaintif fs had no locus standi to challenge the exchange in question: that the documents related to assessment of Al-Qadoos. Shopping Plaza and Raja Hotel pertain to assessment of Income Tax and had no nexus to the co-owne rship of the plaintif fs; that not a single document with regard to co-ownership was produced by the plaintif fs; that the findings of the Trial Court in respect of issue No, 4 are based on misinterpretation, misconstruction of the evidence; that no issue with regard to rendition of account was framed; that property has been exchanged and it was not in possession of late Raja Sabir , therefore, the direction without determining as to whether business property is in possession of whom, the Trial Court to submit the account by the defendants is unwarranted.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos, 1 to 12 contended that late Abdul Naeem applied for the allotment of the property; that late Raja Sabir being son of Abdul Karim was pursuing the process of allotment, after death of Abdul Karim for himself and for the plaintif fs; that he through misrepresentation and by committing fraud, entered his name in the PTD; that all the documentary evidence produced by the plaintif fs clearly demonstrate the co- ownership of the legal heirs of late Abdul Karim; that late Raja Sabir is estopped from his conduct that in the concerned department he exhibited co-ownership of the plaintif fs, but in conce alment manner entered into an exchange with respondent Nos, 4 and 5 over the right and entitlement of the plaintif fs; that the exchange deed was absolutely void having no legal affect, and the Trial Court rightly held so; that the findings rendered by the Trial Court neither reflect misreading nor non-reading of evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The question related to limitation of the suit has been raised by the defence as the respondent Nos, 1 and 2 had challenged the mutation in respect of property in dispute in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the appellant Nos, 1 to 3 and subsequently exchange deed dated 1st January , 1997 between predecessor-in-interest of appellant Nos, Ito 3 and appellant Nos, 4 and 5 and also sought declaration with regard to their shares in respect of inherited property of their father , namely Raja Abdul Karim. The predecessor-in-interest of appellant Nos, I to 3 had claimed that property in dispute was transferred on his name through judicial order dated 18.01.1971 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner , which attained finality , as the same was not challenged before any competent Court of law, therefore, the suit which--was filed on 24.04.2003 for cancellation of the same, is barred by time, regarding which issue No, I was framed. The evidence produced by respondent Nos, 1 to 12 (plaintif fs) ascertaining their right through their father , namely , late Raja Abdul Karim that he applied for allotment of the property in dispute and after his death, the predecessor-in- interest of the appellant Nos, 1 to 3 was pursuing the matter . The perusal of record related to assessment of properties M/s. Al-Qudoos Shopping Centre and Raja Hotel, Masjid Road, Quetta for the, assessment year 1991- 92 to 1993-94 filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant Nos, Ito 3 to Assistant Commissioner Income Tax Circle-B, Quetta indicates that property in dispute was described as property belong to their father , namely ,. Raja Abdul Karim (late), wherein, names of legal heirs of late Raja Abdul Karim had been described,. which includes plaintif fs, Abdul Qadir , Muhammad Sadique and predecessor-in-interest of appellant Nos, 1 to 3. This documentary evidence has not been refuted either by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant Nos, 1 to 3 or appellants themselves through any cogent evidence, therefore, in presence of oral evidence, the documents prevail, as provided under Article 103 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order , 1984. In the circumstances, it came on record through evidence that property in dispute was inherited property and plaintif fs being co-sharers become entitle to have their shares as soon as succession opened, therefore, they are deemed to be in possession of the property of each inch, unless partition taken place.,In such-like cases, the question of limitation has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in case reported in PLD 1990 SC 1, PLD 2002 SC 823 and 1991 SCMR 1369 , thus, the findings rendered by the Trial Court with regard to issue Nos, land 2 warrant no interference by this Court.
9. As far as the findings of the Trial Court with regard to issue No, 4 is concerned, to substantiate the issue related to question as to whether the respondent Nos, 1 to 12 (plaintif fs) are shareholde rs in the property in dispute or otherwise. The plaintif fs had substantiated their :case through an affidavit Ex.P/1 produced by PW-1 Malik Sultan Mehmood, Advocate, who attested the affidavit of Abdul Qadir , Haji Muhammad Sabir (predecessor-in-interest of appellant Nos, 1 to 3) and Muhammad Sadique, wherein, the parties in the suit including predecessor-in-interest of the appellant Nos, 1 to 3 solemnly affirme d that They have constructed a hotel and shopping centre known as Raja Hotel and Al-Qudoos Shopping Centre on inherited property bearing No, 2/20/3 Masjid Road, Quetta and further affirmed that their father Raja Abdul Karim son of Muhammad Khan had expired during December , 1959, and after his death, the real brothers have become the owners of the said property , which had been demolished and constructed the said shopping centre and hotel. In respect of shares it was further affirmed that the real brothers have equal shares in inherited property known as Raja Hotel and Al-Qudoos Shopping Centre. The defence had not denied in doss-examination about the fact Affirmation of Ex.P/1.
Ex.P/2 is an order dated 20th June, 1953, issued by the. Court of Deputy Rehabilita tion Commissioner- cum-Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property Quetta, which was produced by PW-3 Ameer Hamza, representative of Member Board of Revenue, Balochistan, the contents whereof reveals as under:- "In exercise of the powers conferred upon me Under Section 14 of the Regulation I of 1950 I allot Plot bearing Khasra No, 2378 to Abdul Karim with effect from 18.6.1953."
PW-3 has produced Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/7. Ex.P/3 is an application for transfer of an evacuee property of land over which permanent structure has been made or constructed, which was on the name of Abdul Karim son of Muhammad Khan. Ex.P/4 is detail of evacuee property of Urban area of Tehsil Quetta, which further-indicates the name of Abdul Karim and record of property bearing Khasra No, 2378, measuring 1702 sq.ft., constructed on an area 954 sq.ft. open area 748 sq.ft., wherein, in column No, 10, it was provided that site plan has also been approved. Ex.P/5 is Fard-e-Haqiat of Ward No,
6. Circle I, Quetta, Tehsil Quetta, indicating the name of Abdul Karim son of Muhammad Khan, who was in possession of property . Ex.P/6 is an application filed in response to notice under Para 24 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and Para 35 of Settlement Schedule No I, by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant Nos, 1 and 2, namely , late Raja Muhammad Sabir , as at that time the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintif fs including late Raja Muhammad Sabir , 'namely , Raja Abdul Karim was died, however , in the application it is clear ly mentioned that, 'I respectfully beg to state that the plot in question was transferred to my late father M Abdul Karim at Rs, 3,046/58. No such Notice was ever issued to me for the deposit of this amount. My father left no record behind him. My father had already constructed a 3 type pacca House on the said plot, where we are residing since long. In the circumstances it is requested that the price of the plot previously fixed at Rs, 30046/58 may kindly be upheld, which I am prepared to pay and the Notice under reference may kindly be withdrawn.' Ex.P/7 is another application filed by the late Raja Muhammad Sabir (predecessor-in-interest of the appellants No, 1 to '3) before the Deputy Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner , Quetta-Kalat Region, Quetta for deletion of Plot Khasra No, 2378, situated at Masjid Road, Quetta from the auction list, wherein too, it was submitted as under:-- " It is respectfully submitted that the above-mentioned plot is in our possession since 1956 on which our late father Abdul Karim has built a pacca Residential House bearing Municipal No, 2-20/3 we have been residing there since then. In this connection we further beg to submit that owing to the death of our father we were not aware of the fact that we were required to pay the price of the said plot. We have now come to know that the said plot (where we have constructed a pacca residential HOuse) has been included in the Auction list And that may kindly be deleted from the auction list and two months' time be given to pay the dues."
PW-4 Muhammad Anwar , representative of Income Tax Department, has produced Ex.P/8 to Ex.P/83. Ex.P 8 is an application filed before the Assistant Com missioner of Income Tax, Circle-B, Quet ta for finalization of assessment of M/s. Al-Qadoos Shopping Centre and Raja Hotel, Masjid for the assessment year 1991/92 to 1993/94 filed by the predecessor-in-interest of appellant Nos, I to 3, the relevant is reproduced herein below:--- "That an Evacuee Plot bearing Khasra No, 2378 measuring 1702 sq. feet situated at Masjid Road, Quetta was allotted in favour of our father Mr. Abdul Kareem (Late) by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee. Property . Quetta vide his allotment Order dated 20.06.1953, and whereon a Residential House bearin g Municipal No, 2-20/3, Masjid Road, Quetta was constructed by our father during the .financial year 1953/54, under the approved plan by. the Municipal Engineer , Quetta dated 4.9.1953, and whereas Mr. Abdul Kareem had expired during the month of December , 1959 and naturally after his death his real sons namely:---
(a) Abdul Qadir ,
(b) Haji Muhammad Sabir ,
(c) Muhammad Sadiq, have become the owners of the said inherited Property , bearing Khasra No 2378 measuring 1702 Sq.Feet (House No, 2-20/3), Masjid Road, Quetta, which had been demolished and constructed a Hotel/Shopping Centre, known as Al-QADUS SHOPPING CENTRE. AND RAJA HOTEL, QUETT A. The Ownership rights in shape of Ford of Property in the -name of one of the Co-Owner , at which the Building in question had been constructed is attached herewith for your Honour's kind consideration".
Ex.P/8 further reveals that after death of real owner of the property in dispute, namely, Raja Abdul Karim has also been incorporated in the aforesaid document. The contents whereof are reproduced herein below: "DEATH OF REAL OWNER :- The real owner of land as well as constructed House bearing Municipal No, 2-20/3, Masjid Road, Quetta had expired during the month of December 1959, and whereas .after the decal' of real owners of Land/house. his real sons namely:-L--
(a) Abdul Qadir ,
(b) Haji Muhammad Sabir ,
(c) Muhammad Sadiq have become the owners of inherited property in place of their deceased father Mr. Abdul Kareem and whereas the heirs had demolished the said inherited property bearing Municipal No, 2- 20/3, Masjid Road, Quetta and constructed thereupon a Shopping Centre/Hotel".
All the above-mentioned documents including assessment of Al-Qadoos -Shopping Centre and Raja Hotel, Masjid Road, Quetta clearly demonstrate that the property was inherited property of Raja Abdul Karim and each legal heir of Raja Abdul Karim had right to the extent of their respective shares. Besides documentary evidence, oral evidence of PW-5 Mst. Kulsoom, PW-6 Mirza Bashir Ahmed and PW-7 Rehmat Khan supported the issue No, 4 in this regard.
10. On the other hand, the appellants (defendants) produced DW-1 Ali Ahmed, who merely stated that predecessor-in-interest of. appellant Nos, 1 to 3 Raja Muhammad Sabir (late) was owner of the property in dispute.
DW-2 Imam Bakhsh produced National Tax Number (NTN) certificate of Haji Muhammad Sabir , Abdul Qadir and Muhammad Sadiq as Ex-D/1 to Ex-D/3.
DW-3 William produced utility bills of telephone as Ex-D/4.
DW-4 to DW-6 had -produced documents Ex-D/5 to Ex-D/19. Much stress has been made on Ex-D/19, the order dated 18.01.1971 passed by the Addition al Settlement and Commissioner Khairpur Quetta and Kalat Division at Sukkur , passed in Appeal under Section 19(I)(b) of the Displaced Persons Act, 1958 filed by late Muhammad Sabir son of Abdul Karim, whereby the appeal was accepted. Since the appeal was in continuation of the proceedings with regard to basic allotment in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintif fs, namely , Raja Abdul Karim, on that stance, the appeal was decided, therefore, on the said strength late Muhammad Sabir in presence of aforesaid documentary evidence produced by plaintif fs, cannot be considered an exclusive owner of the property in dispute and he is stopped from his conduct, mentioned hereinabove reflects from various documentary evidence as mentioned hereinabove.
11. It is obvious from the record that after death of Abdul Karim, the conduct of male legal heirs of Abdul Karim' has also been noticed, where they instead of providing details of all the legal heirs of late Abdul Karim before the concerned department, including female, in a colorful manner deprived them from their valuable rights in the inherited property .
12. As far issue No, 5 is concerned, the exchange deed arrived at between late Raja Muhammad Sabir and appellant Nos, 4 and . 5, dated 01.01.1997, though conceded by the appellants, but in view of decision of issue No, 4, the predecessor-in-interest of appellant Nos, 1 to ' 3 had got no authority to enter into impugned exchange deed without having lawful authority on behalf of other legal heirs. The respondents (plaintif fs) through cogent 'documentary evidence sufficiently rebut ted the revenue entries in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners No, 1 to 3 (defendants), therefore, the findings of issue No, 4 warrant no interference.
13. Adverting to issue No, 5, "whether the exchange deed dated 01-01-97 is illegal one", and issue No, 6, "whether the transaction between defendants No, 4, 5 and 6 is illegal and void". From the evidence on record, the property in dispute i,e, an Evacuee plot bearing Khasra No, 2378, Khatooni No, 44, measuring 1702 sq.ft. new Khewat No, 160, Khatooni No, 235, Khasra No, 262, Mohal and Mouza Ward No, 19, Tappa Urban situated at the Junction of Masjid Road and Roop Chand Road, Quetta was allotted in favour of late Abdul Kareem by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property , Quetta vide allotment order dated 20th June, 1953 and the resolution of issue No, 4 demonstrates that all the legal heirs of late Abdul Kareem were co-sharers according to their respective shares in the aforesaid property . The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants (defendants) that predecessor-in- interest of the appellants No, 1 to 3 was recorded owner and the appellants No, 4 and 5 as well as 6 were purchasers and through exchange deed Ex.P/4 and Ex-D/25 for value in good faith and without notice of earlier allotment in favour of late Abdul Karim, therefore, they are entitled for benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is not tenable. The equitable doctrine contained in Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act (proviso) which protects a subsequent transfer , it must be established by them that they had acted in good faith and taken reasonable care before entering into the transaction and that they had given valuable consideration for such transfer . The equitable doctrine is a deduction from the law of estoppel, which must be pleaded clearly with specific fact to be relied upon. The onus of this equitable doctrine is always upon the person, who pleads such protection as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Allah Bakhsh and others v. Province of Punjab and others , 2002 SCMR 2003 .
14. In the instant case, the appellants No, 4 and 5 never pleaded that they were bona fide purchasers through exchange without notice of right shares of legal heirs of late Abdul Kareem. In fact, had they bothered to check/inquire about .the same, they would have discovered but no such effort was taken by them? Admittedly , neither they raised such plea of equitable doctrine in their written statement nor any issue was framed, therefore, the appellants No, 4 and 5 and responden t No, 13 cannot claim the benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. Reference in this respect is to be made to the case titled Ghulam Rasool and others v. Noor Muhammad and others , 2017 SCMR 81 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:--- "The essential ingredients of this Section are, (a) that the transferor was the ostensible owner; (b) that the transfer was made by consent express or implied of the real owner; (c) that the transfer was made for consideration; and
(d) that the transferee while acting in good faith had taken reasonable care before entering into such transaction.
These four imperative/essential ingredients must co-exist in order for a person to take the benefit of the equitable principle, however , merely on account of some error committed by the revenue staff in the revenue record unintentional or deliberate or motivated which excludes the name of the lawful owner of the property therefrom and the property , shown to be in the name of some other person who is not the owner of the whole or a part thereof by itself shall not deprive and denude the. true and actual owner from the title of the- property and this by no means can be construed that the transfer , to the person claiming protection of the rule of equity ibid by a person who actually is not the owner is being made by consent express or implied of the real owner . This even is not the case of the appellants that the transfer to them was with the consent of two brothers whose names have been illegally and unauthorizedly removed from the column of ownership by the revenue authorities, so as to bring the case within the purview of Section 41 ibid. In the instant case as it is an undisputed fact that the property in question was owned by Muhammad Siddique who was survived by four sons (named above) and they all became the joint owners of the property . The entries in the revenue record to that effect were made and are vivid and uncontroverted. How and why the names of the two brothers from the revenue record were removed is absolutely obscure. It is not the case of the present appellants that the said . brothers had transferred their share in the joint property (purchased by them) in favour of the other two brothers by any lawful transaction/means i,e, by exchange, gift, sale, relinquishment etc. Thus if the appellants had taken reasonable care in going into the genesis of the Ownership, and examining the record in-depth," which they as purchasers were required to do so, they would have found out that the property being an inherited property was originally owned by Muhammad Siddique which devolved upon his legal heirs i,e, four brothers jointly and that all these four brothers still continue to be the co- owners of the property; and that the exclusion of Ghulam Muhammad and Jewan's name from the revenue record is not on account of any legal or authorized transaction or mode, rather for either a human error or because of some tainted reason. Be that as it may, the mere omission of Ghulam 'Muhammad and Jewan's name in the revenue record in no manner can be construed to mean that they had consented either express or implied for the sale .in favour of the appellants and that the appellants took reasonable care in good faith, within the contemplation of condition No, (iv) of Section 41 of ibid. Obviously such authorized sale to the extent of their share in the sold property was void and that the case of the appellants do not squarely qualify the test of Section 41 and, therefore, they could not take up the plea of bona fide purchaser and their sale could not be protected on that account.
Resultantly , this appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed."
15. In the instant case, while executing exchange deed Ex.P14 and Ex-D/25, neither , the appellants No 4 and 5 nor the respondent No, 13 had taken reasonable care about the ownership nor examined the record in-depth. Had they done so, they would have found out that the 'property in dispute was originally owned by late Abdul Kareem, which devolved upon his legal heirs. Besides, the appellants No, 4 and 5 vide exchange deed Ex.P/4 and Ex-D/25, had also given shop constructed on a piece of land measuring 157, 2/3 sq.ft. under Khasra No, 471/279-473/283 situated in Ward No, 34, Tappa Urban Tehsil and District, Quetta in lieu of property in dispute, but contrary to that, the said property was entered on the name of appellant Abdul Ali and thereafter said property was transferred in the name of Baz Muhammad son of Ghul am Nabi i.e. the real brother of appellant Abdul Bari, who also filed a suit against the appellants No, 1 to 3 for cancellation. of second rectification deed dated 14th June, 1999, which - was outcome of exchange deed Ex.P/4. It is also important to mention here that the brother of the appellant Abdul Bari namely Baz Muhammad had also filed an appeal under Section 161 of Balochistan and Revenue Act before the Revenue Tribunal-I/Land Commissioner Balochistan against his brothers includi ng the appellant Abdul Bari for restoration of mutation entry No, 1080, which was accepted vide order dated 26th November , 2008, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition No, 191-Q of 2012 vide judgment dated 19th March, 2014. After restoration of mutation No, 1080, all the subsequent entries of shop measuring 157.2 sq.ft. including mutation entries in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of appellants No, 1 to 3 and appellants No, 4 and 5 were cancelled and both predecessor of the appellants No, I to 3 and appellants No, 4 and 5 had lost title, therefore, in these circumstances too, exchange deed Ex.P/4 dated 1st January , 1997 was illegal and subsequent transfer of property in dispute -between the appellants No, 4 and 5 and defendant No, 6 (respondent No, 13) was also illegal and void, therefore, the findings of the Trial Court with regard to issues No, 5 and 6 warrant no interference, however , the findings of the Trial Court in respect of shop constructed under Khasra No, 471/279/473/283, measuring 157-2/3 sq.ft. are set aside in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 19th March, 2014. The findings of the Trial Court with regard to rendition of account as dealt in issue No, 8 are also not sustainable as neither any issue was framed in this respect nor any evidence came on record, therefore, direction of the Trial Court to the appellants No, 1 to 3 (defendants No, 1 to 3) to furnish detail of income and expenditure is also set aside.
In view of the above modification, the Regular First Appeal No, 25 of 2008 is otherwise dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly .