' These Civil Revisions No, 137/81, 186/81, 187/81, 188/81 and 189/81 arise from a Single Judgment dated 18-1-1981 whereby, the learned District Judge, Multan dismissed 5 appeals filed by Falak Sher and others petitioners/appellants therein against the judgments and decrees dated 21-3-1979 passed by Civil Judge 1st Class, Multan dismissing the suits for possession filed by the petitioners herein against the respondents of the 5 aforesaid revisions. Since these revisions involve identical legal and factual questions and arise from Single Judgment disposing all the 5 appeals, I propose to dispose of them through single judgment.
2. The facts leading up to these revisions in brief are that on 1-3-1973, Falak Sher and 4 others, present petitioners, filed 5 suits for possession of Property No, 2257 and 2258 parts of 2259 and 2260 located in Khasra No, 610-Ward-8-Muslims, Haram Gate, Multan against the respective defendants/respondents. It has been averred therein that Khasra No, 610 measuring 2 kanals and 10 marlas was owned by Ali Muhammad, the prepositus of the petitioners/plaintiffs. The respondents/their predecessorin-interest had occupied the properties as licensees under late Ali Muhammad but misrepresenting the properties to be evacuee, the respondents got the same allotted in their names. The P. T. Ds. Which were issued in favour of the respondents were, however, cancelled by the Settlement Authority on 15-11-1969 and as such the petitioners/plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession on the basis of their ownership. The respondents contested the suits by raising preliminary objections and denying the averments of plaint in their written statement. They took the plea that the disputed properties do not fah in Khasra No, 610 and that the whole of Khasra No, 610 as having not been declared a non-evacuee property was not owned by late Ali Muhammad. On the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- ' Issues:
(1) Whether the Civil Courts lack jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
(2) Whether the suit is within the period of limitation?
(3) Whether the suit is incorrectly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction?
(4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties?
(5) Whether the suit property has been incorrectly described? If so, with what effects?
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit property and are entitled to its possession?
(7) Relief.
' The trial Court decided Issues Nos. 1 to 5 against the defendants/respondents. However, Issue No, 6 which is crucial one was found against the petitioners/ plaintiffs and in view of the finding on this issue, 5 suits of the petitioners were dismissed on 21-3-1979. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed 3 appeals which were dismissed by the learned District Judge on 18-1-1981 by a single judgment.
Hence these revisions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the finding of the Courts below on Issue No, 6 by vehemently contending:
(i) That since the findings of the learned Courts below on Issue No, 6 are based on misreading, non-reading of the evidence and misinterpretation of orders dated 17-3-1955, 14-3-1956, 14-2-1958 and 6-7-1972 passed by Deputy Custodian, Multan, Deputy Custodian (Gen.) Lahore, Custodian, Lahore and Mr. Zaki-ud-Din Pal, J. As Custodian respectively whereby, it has been concurrently declared and finally adjudicated that entire Khasra No, 610 measuring 2' kanals and 10 marlas is non-evacuee property owned by Ali Muhammad, the prepositus of the petitioners, therefore, the learned Courts below have acted illegally and with material irregularity in dismissing the 5 suits filed by the petitioners against the respondents;
(ii) That in the circumstances of the case, it was incumbent upon the trial Court and on its failure upon the appellate Court to have appointed a Local Commissioner to demarcate Khasra No, 610 and decide the matter accordingly. The learned counsel suggested this Court to appoint a Local Commissioner to demarcate Khasra No, 610 at this stage of the case.
4. As far contention No. 1, the learned counsel for the petitioners has explained that disputed Khasra No, 610 measuring 2 kanals and 10 marlas which was Abadi Deli was exclusively owned by Ali Muhammad, the prepositus of the petitioners wherein he had raised some constructions. After partition, late Ali Muhammad gave one Ahata i. e. Property bearing No, 2261 of Khasra No, 610 on lease to one Mali Shah. The said lessee, however, through misrepresentation got the same allotted to him as evacuee property. Feeling aggrieved on 10-3-1952, Ali Muhammad moved application under section 18 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Properties) Ordinance, 1949, before Deputy Custodian, Multan for declaration to the effect that Property No, 2261 as shown in Property Tax Register being non-evacuee, he was its owner. The Deputy Custodian, Multan vide his order dated 17-3-1955, declared Property No, 2261 of Khasra No, 610 as Muslim Property owned by Ali Muhammad. Aggrieved by this declaration Mali Shah filed appeal which was dismissed by Deputy Custodian (Gen.) Lahore on 14-3-1956 declaring entire Khasra No, 610 measuring 2 kanals and 10 rnarlas as non-evacuee property owned by Ali Muhammad. Feeling still unsatisfied Mali Shah preferred a revision followed by 3 review petitions before Custodian but all were dismissed. On 14- 2-1958, the Custodian while rejecting review petitions declared Khasra No, 610 as whole a non- evacuee property of Ali Muhammad. The learned counsel has further explained that Khasra No, 610 is also comprised of Property No, 2257, 2258, 2259 and 2260 which had also been given to the present respondents their predecessors-in-interest on lease by Ali Muhammad. It so happened that when All Muhammad was engaged in litigation with Mali Shah over Property No, 2261, the respondents/their predecessor-in-interest, misrepresenting the disputed properties as evacuee, got the same allotted and P. T. D's issued in their names, which, however, were cancelled by the Settlement Authorities on 15-11-1969 on the representation of the petitioners. The petitioners then moved the Custodian for the demarcation of Khasra No, 610 and to deliver possession of the property to them. The Custodian directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to demarcate non- evacuee property in the light of the orders already passed. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner submitted his report on 26-1-1972 to the then Custodian Mr. Zaki-ud-Din Pal, J. (as he then was) who on 6-7-1972 specifically holding entire Khasra No, 610 as non-evacuee owned by Ali Muhammad, again directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Multan to demarcate Khasra No, 610 in accordance with the order of the Custodian already passed. The learned counsel informs that ultimately, the Chief Settlement Commissioner observed that further demarcation was not necessary and that the petitioners may take legal action in Civil Court for the ejectment of the respondents. The petitioners then filed 5 civil suits for possession on the basis of ownership against the respondents.
' As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents has vigorously defended the impugned judgments and decrees on the ground that petitioners have hopelessly failed to establish their ownership of the disputed property and that the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below on Issue No, 6 do not suffer from misreading, non-reading and misinterpretation of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and going through the record, I find that the matter involved herein is simple and clear. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed suits for possession of the Properties Nos, 2257, 2258, 2259 and 2260 on the basis of their ownership. These properties are part of Khasra No, 610. The respondents/defendants denied the ownership and entitlement of the petitioners to get the possession of the same. To resolve the controversy, the trial Court framed Issue No, 6 as follows: "Whether the petitioners are owners of the suit property and are entitled to its possession?."
' The plain reading of this issue indicates that in order to get a decree for possession of the disputed property, the plaintiff had to prove his ownership of the same. The trial Court found that the petitioners could not prove their ownership of the disputed property and that the decisions of the Deputy Custodian and Custodian neither relate to the disputed properties nor have declared Ali. Muhammad, as owner of the entire Khasra No, 610. Consequently, the trial Court decided this issue against the petitioners and in view of its finding on this issue alone dismissed the suit of the petitioners/ plaintiffs. The learned District Judge has also confirmed the finding of the trial Court on this issue.
6. It would be convenient to mention that certain facts e. g. That Ali Muhammad was the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners; that the disputed Properties No, 2257, 2258, 2259 and 2260 are part of Khasra No, 610; that Property No, 2261 consisting of two shops and Ahata measuring about 12 marlas only which was the subject-matter of the judgment of the Deputy Custodian and Custodian is different from the disputed properties of the suit; that previous litigation with regard to Property No, 2261 was with Mali Shah who is not a party to these suits and that the respondents herein were not party to the litigation with regard to Property No, 2261; that the allotment of the disputed property in favour of the respondents has since been cancelled; and that Khasra No, 610 measures 2 kanals and 10 marlas whereas Property No, 2261 was only 12 marlas, are the undisputed and proved facts of the case.
7. The above statement of the facts makes crystal clear that the sole question which engages my attention and needs determination in accordance with the guiding principles laid down by the Superior Courts for appreciation of evidence in revision petition, is whether the plaintiffs/petitioners have by legal evidence proved themselves as owners of the disputed property or not. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the disputed properties are part of Khasra No, 610, the petitioners/plaintiffs have through judgments dated 17-3-55, 14-3-1956, 14-2-1958 and 6-7-1972 passed by the Deputy Custodian, Multan, Deputy Custodian (Gen.), Lahore, Custodian, Lahore and Mr. Zaki-ud-Din Pal, J. Acting as Custodian, proved that the whole of Khasra No, 610 was not only non-evacuee property but the same was owned.By Ali Muhammad, the prepbsitus of the petitioners. The grievance of the learned counsel, however, is that these judgments which have been tendered, proved and exhibited concurrently, declaring and finally adjudicating late Ali Muhammad as owner of the non-evacuee entire Khasra No, 610, have been misread and misinterpreted. Since there are allegations of misreading, non-reading and misinterpret- A tion, I propose to reappraise the evidence to satisfy myself whether the judgments of the learned Courts below really suffer from misreading, non-reading and misinterpretation or not and for that I would start with application dated 10-3-1952 moved by Ali Muhammad under section 18 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949, which leads to the decisions of the Custodian and Deputy Custodian as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The perusal of this application dearly indicates that it pertains to Property No, 2261 which by that time having been treated as evacuee property had been allotted to Mali Shah and this application does not relate to the entire Khasra No, 610. I further find that in this application Ali Muhammad had sought declaration to the effect that Property No, 2261 which was allotted to Mali Shah was non- evacuee property owned by him. Coming to the judgments referred to by the learned counsel l4 would like to CNanline the judgment clued 17-3-1955 of the original Court 1. e. Passed by the Deputy Custodian, Multan first. In this judgment it has been clearly stated that: "This is an application by Ali Muhammad petitioner under section 18 of Ordinance XV of 1949, for a declaration that he is the owner in possession of an Ihata comprising two shops and that this Ihata was not, evacuee property in dispute is situated in Ward No, 8, Muslim, Outside, Haram Gate, Multan City and it is shown in property tax register by No, 2261."
After discussion, the Deputy Custodian made the following declaration:- "I, therefore, grant the declaration to him that he is the owner in possession of the Ihata in dispute which is shown in the property tax register by No, 2261."
' The language of the order is very much clear and it leaves no room for the doubt that the application was only with regard to the ownership of property No, 2261 and as such Ali Muhammad was declared owner of non-evacuee property No, 2261 and not of the entire Khasra No, 610.
' Adverting to the judgment dated 14-3-1956, I find that this order was passed in appeal against the above-mentioned order of the original Court dated 17-3-1955. The Deputy Custodian (Gen.), Lahore as an Appellate Court stated : "I declare that the plot of the land including two shops mentioned in property tax register as No, 2261-R. H. Khasra No, 610 belongs to Ali Muhammad and that it is not an evacuee property."
' While dismissing the appeal, the Court stated in the order : "I maintain the order dated 17-3-1955, passed by Sh. Abdul Hameed, Deputy Custodian, Multan."
' The bare reading of this judgment shows that only the judgment of the original Court has been maintained and the declaration was also confined to the property No, 2261. The learned counsel has' attempted to make capital out of the words (Khasra No, 610) used alongwith property No, 2261.
I am convinced that the attempt is miss conceived. It is very much clear that Khasra No, 610 has been mentioned as a further description for the identity of property No, 2261.
' Now dealing with the judgment dated 14-2-1958, I think that it would be useful to reproduce the entire judgment.
"ORDER ' Ali Muhammad applied for a declaration that a piece of land with two shops was not evacuee property. This declaration was granted by the Deputy Custodian, Multan, on 17-3-1955. Mali Shah, who claims to be an allottee of this land appealed and his appeal was dismissed on 14-3-1956. He then applied for revision and as stated in my order dated 19-6-1956 the counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any defect in the orders of the lower Courts. I, therefore, dismissed the petition for revision. On 13th July, Mali Shah applied to me for review of my order dated 19-6-1956.
That petition was dismissed on 30-7-1956. He then filed another application for review on 15-10- 1956 and I issued notice to the Rehabilitation Authority. Mr. Muhammad Daud, Rehabilitation Officer, states that from the evidence on record it has been clearly found by the original and the appellate Courts that Khasra No, 610 is non-evacuee property and there is nothing on the record to show that this is not correct. There is no occasion for me to vary the concurrent findings of the Courts below and the petition for review is again dismissed."
' The plain reading of this judgment shows that the concurrent findings of the original Court dated 17-3-1955 and of the appellate Court dated 14-3-1956 have not been varied. The learned counsel has, however, tried to get something from the recital in the judgment what Mr. Muhammad Daud, Rehabilitation Officer had stated before the Custodian on 14-2-1958. I am afraid that this part of the judgment that "Muhammad Daud, Rehabilitation Officer states that from the evidence on record" it has been clearly found by the original and the appellate Courts that Khasra No, 610 is non-evacuee property and there is nothing on the record to show that this is not correct is liable to be ignored by this Court for the reason that this statement is not admissible under the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and that this statement stands belied by the judgments of the original and appellate Courts referred to by Mr. Muhammad Daud, Rehabilitation Officer inasmuch as in those judgments which are before me, .Khasra No, 610 as a whole was not found as non-evacuee property. This judgment when read as a whole and in the light of the judgments of the original and appellate Courts referred to above, it leaves no room for doubt that the entire Khasra was not declared as a non-evacuee property and the judgments of the lower Courts were not varied. Furthermore, in this judgment it has nowhere been stated that Ali Muhammad was the owner of the entire Khasra No,
610. May be judged from any angle, it does not prove that Ali Muhammad was owner of the Khasra as a whole and in this case I am concerned more with the ownership of Ali Muhammad of entire Khasra No, 610 than the evacuee or non-evacuee nature of entire Khasra No, 610.
' Now coming to the last judgment dated 6-7-1972 passed by Mr. Zaki-udDin Pal, J. (as he then was) as Custodian, I find that it has nowhere been declared by him that All Muhammad was the owner of the entire Khasra No, 610 measuring 2 kanals and 10 marlas and that he had simply after narrating the facts directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to comply with the order of Custodian dated 31-7-1970. There is no doubt that while narrating the facts of the case, his Lordship (as he then was) has stated in that order that "the Deputy Custodian granted him the declaration that he was the owner in possession of Ihata shown in the property tax register bearing No, 2261.
The Deputy Custodian (Gen.) in appeal declared that the plot of the land with two shops bearing No, 2261 in property tax register and Khasra No, 610 belongs to Ali Muhammad and was owned by him". It appears that the facts were not correctly stated before him because the appellate Court has nowhere declared Khasra No, 610 as a whole belonging to Ali Muhammad. Furthermore, this being only a narration of the facts does not tantamount to a declaration by Mr. Zaki-ud-Din Pal, J.
To the effect that Khasra No, 610 was non-evacuee property belonging to Ali Muhammad. The above discussion would indicate that the application moved by Ali Muhammad related to property No, 2261 alone and that the original Court in its order dated 17-3-1955 gave declaration only to this effect that Ali Muhammad was the owner of non-evacuee property No: 2261. The appellate Court and the Revisional Courts have maintained the order of the original Court and have not varied the same and as such it would be too much to stretch these orders to the entire Khasra No, 610 or to the property in dispute and hold Ali Muhammad as owner of the disputed property. I further find that since by 10-3-1952, the disputed properties had not been treated as evacuee property and had not been allotted to anyone, neither Ali Muhammad was competent to seek declaration with regard to neither that property nor the Deputy Custodian and Custodian could declare the same as non-evacuee property or belonging to Ali Muhammad. The relevant section may be quoted with advantage : ' Section 18. "Claims by interested persons.-(1) Any person claiming any right or interest in any property treated by the Custodian or a Rehabilitation Officer as evacuee property may prefer claim to the Custodian on the ground that ;
(a) that property is not evacuee property ; or
(b) his interest in the property has not been affected by the provisions of this Ordinance.
(2) An application under subsection (1) shall be made within prescribed period of not less than 30 days from the prescribed date.
(3) On receiving an application under subsection (2), the Custodian shall hold a summary enquiry in the prescribed manner and after taking such evidence as may be produced shall pass an order stating the reasons therefor, rejecting the application or allowing it wholly or any part on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit to impose."
Since by, 10-3-1952, the disputed property of this case had not been treated as evacuee property by the Custodian or by Rehabilitation Department, the question of making application by Ali.
Muhammad and of declaration by th 'Deputy Custodian or Custodian did not arise. For all these reasons I a of the opinion, that the plaintiffs who under issue No, 6 had to prove their ownership of the disputed property as a fact, have been able to prove the title through any legal evidence. I further find that the findings of the learned Courts below do not suffer from any misreading, non- reading or misinterpre tation. The petitioners in fact want this Court to misread the evidence and misinterpret the judgments.
8. As far contention No, 2, raised by the learned counsel I am of the opinion that since the finding of this Court is that the petitioner/plaintiff has not proved his ownership of the disputed property, no useful purpose would be served by appointing local commission to demarcate Khasra No, 610. It is remarkable that during the trial before the learned District Judge, no application for the appointment of Commission under Order XXVI, rule 9, C. P. C., was moved.
9. For what has been stated above, there being no merit in the revisions the same are dismissed with no other as to costs.