RAJA SHAKEEL AHMAD, J. The above captioned cross appeals bearing number C.F.A. No. 87/2020 and C.F.A. No. 10/2021 are the result of one and the same judgment and partial decree dated 13/10/2020 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 90/2010 for recovery of an amount along with compound interest, as such we are of the considered opinion to dispose both the above mentioned cross appeals through this single judgment.
2.. The brief of Civil Suit bearing No. 90/2010 mentioned in detail in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. Precisely, the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs entered in a written agreement with the defendants dated 12.08.1986 and purchased land bearing Khasra No. 1010 measuring 3 kanals, whereon 2 residential houses were Constructed in consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which the defendant No.1 has purchased from one Muhammad Sharif through an agreement dated 10.06.1981 and the same was accepted..
Subsequently, one Muhammad Sharif filed a suit against the defendants for redemption of the property sold to the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest through a Civil Suit 46/1991, on the plea that the said property was mortgaged property, which was later on decreed in favour of Muhammad Sharif and the judgment/ decree passed by the trial Court was upheld throughout. In the whole process of said case, the father of plaintiffs of the Suit No. 90/2010, remained party and contested the case. As per plaintiffs' averment, finally, the predecessor in interest of plaintiffs passed away due to shock and tension. As such the plaintiffs claimed amount of Rs. 85,00,000/- for market value of the land along with two sets of residential houses under Khasra No. 1010, Rs. 1,70,000 for improvement of said houses and cost to defend the Civil Suit No. 46/1991 amounting to Rs.
8,50,000/-, making it total claimed amount 9520000/-, along with 15% compound interest from 25.09.2000 till the payment of amount by the defendants, through a Civil Suit bearing number Civil Suit No. 90/2010. The defendants submitted their written statement and denied the averments of the plaint. The learned trial Court, in the light of divergent pleadings, framed 16 issues including relief and proceed the case. After completion of proceedings, documentary and oral evidence and final arguments, the learned trial Court partially decreed the suit. Both the parties feeling aggrieved from the same filed the cross appeals in hand impugning the same judgment/decree dated 13.10.2020.
3. The operative part of the impugned judgment and partial decree dated 13.10.2020 passed by the learned trial Court is reproduced as under:-- "Relief.
Keeping in view of my above findings on issues, suit of the plaintiffs is decreed to the extent of Rs. 300000/ original sale amount and Rs. 850,000/ as cost of defending Civil Suit No. 46/1991, a total amount of Rs. 1150,000/ with compound interest from June 2007 till the payment of decreetal amount."
4. The appellants/defendants felt aggrieved from the judgment/decree dated 13.10.2020 and preferred an appeal bearing number, C.F.A. No. 87 of 2020 before this Court with following prayer:-- "It is therefore, very humbly prayed that by accepting this appeal the impugned judgment/ decree passed by the trial Court dated 13.10.2020 in Civil Suit No. 90/2010 may kindly be set aside and the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs may very graciously be dismissed to meet the ends of justice, law and equity."
5. The appellants/plaintiffs also filed an appeal bearing number C.F.A. No. 10/2021 against the impugned judgment/decree dated 13.10.2020, with following prayer:-- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the impugned partial judgment and decree of the learned trial Court may kindly be set aside and suit of the plaintiffs may kindly be decreed as prayed for, to meet the ends of Justice, law and equity."
6. Both the appeals are inter-connected and outcome of the judgment/ decree dated 13.10.2020 passed by the learned trial Court, vide which the suit of defendants, as such, both the appeals heard jointly.
7. The learned counsel for appellants/defendants C.F.A. No. 87/ 2020 contended that the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Gilgit is against the facts, record and evidence brought by the parties before the Court. The learned judge while discussing on issues has drawn a wrong conclusion from the facts and evidence and decreed the suit partially in favour of plaintiffs, however, the plaintiffs were not entitled for the same and the suit of the plaintiffs was to be dismissed. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court is against the principle of natural justice, law and equity. The procedure adopted by the respondents/ plaintiffs for framing their suit was against the law and procedure. The impugned judgment and partial decree are vague, perverse and ambiguous on very hasty and slip shot manner, resulting which the learned trial Court erred in law and procedure, as prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit of plaintiffs was hopelessly time barred but the learned trial Court did not give due consideration on the real facts of the case and misinterpreted the relevant facts and the relevant laws involved in the case as such reached to a wrong conclusion by passing partial decree in favour of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs badly failed to prove their case through reliable evidence and record, but the learned Court not passed the impugned judgment/decree in wrong assumption and erroneous reasons just on surmises and conjectures. The learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and partial decree exercised jurisdiction so not vested on it by law. Lastly, the learned counsel for appellants/defendants prayed as mentioned in the memo of appeal, reproduced in Para-4 supra.
8. The learned counsel for appellants/plaintiffs of C.F.A. No. 10/ 2021 contended that the impugned partial judgment and decree of the learned trial Court is legally not maintainable, wherein the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiffs. The part of judgment, through the same the learned trial Court dismissed the suit and claim is against the basic principle of law, equity and justice. The plaintiffs fully proved their case beyond any shadow of doubt through documentary and oral evidence, as such the plaint of the plaintiff should be decreed in favour of plaintiffs as prayed for, rather the learned trial Court decreed the suit partially. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact in issue involved in the case in hand and passed the impugned judgment by depriving the plaintiffs partially, on the basis of suppositions and conjectures. The learned trial Court admitted the claim of purchase, but denied the fact regarding the cost of improvement and maintenance amounting to 1,70,000 and also denied to evaluate the market value of purchasing amount, which is against the law and justice. The learned trial Court has misconceived and misinterpreted the material available on the record of the case file and passed the impugned partial judgment and decree on the flimsy grounds against the appellants/plaintiffs. The impugned partial judgment and decree of the learned trial Court against the appellants/plaintiffs is based on non-reading and misreading of the evidence of the parties. Finally, the learned counsel for appellants/plaintiffs of C.F.A. No. 10/2021 prayed, which is reproduced in Para-5 of this judgment.
9. Both the learned counsel for parties opposed the contention of counsel for opposite side and tried their best to discard the averments of opposite counsel.
10. We have heard the arguments at length advanced by the learned counsel for the parties pro and contra, and perused the record of the case with able assistance of their counsel.
11. Perusal of record it transpires that the appellants/plaintiffs sought declaratory decree and claimed recovery of following amounts:-- i. Latest market value of suit property amounting to Rs.85,00,000/- ii. Costs of maintenance and improvement of the houses amounting to Rs.1,70,000/- iii. Costs of defending Suit No. 46/ 1991 amounting to Rs.8,50,000/- The above costs making the value of claim Rs. 95,20,000/- and the plaintiffs claimed 15% compound interest also from the date of initial decree in Civil Suit No. 46/91 i.e. 25.09.2000.
12. The plaintiffs failed to substantiate the market value of the disputed land, however sale deed is proved. The plaintiff also failed to prove the costs of maintenance and improvement as such the claim of plaintiffs upto the extent of renovation charges is baseless. The claim regarding the costs to defend the case Civil Suit No. 46/1991 is accepted as per claim since 1991 till 2007 by the trial Court. The learned trial Court rightly considered and calculated the amounts of claim, Rs.
3,00,000/-(original sale amount) and Rs. 8,50,000/-(as cost to defend the case Civil Suit No. 46/1991), total amount Rs. 11,50,000/- with compound interest from June 2007 till the payment of decretal amount.
13. The learned trial Court has framed 16 issues as per averments of the parties and discussed each and every issue in the light of evidence brought on record by the party concerned and have drawn correct findings in the light of material available on record. The judgment/decree impugned through the cross appeals in hand does not suffer any irregularity or infirmity or error nor the same is the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence, is based on cogent reasons, therefore, doesn't call for any interference by this Court.
14. As sequel to above observations, both the appeals bearing number C.F.A. No. 87/2020 and C.F.A.
No.10/2021 are hereby dismissed by upholding the judgment/decree dated 13/10/2020 passed by learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 90/2010. A copy of this judgment be placed in case file of C.F.A.
No. 10/2021. Parties to bear their own costs. File.