1. ' This revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below decreeing the suit of respondent for declaration and permanent injunction. The relief of declaration was sought to the extent of ownership of 2.20 acres in Survey No, 441 and 1.21 acres in Survey No 249, both situated in' Deh Patni, Taluka Rohri, District Sukkur, which were allotted to the predecessor-in- title of the respondent Liaquat Hussain in lieu of his claim for Agricultural land under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, vide Katoni dated 31st October, 1964.
2. The admitted position in the case is that one Kbatanmal held 14 annas share in Survey Nos. 249 and 441, situated in Deh Patni, Taluka Rohri, District Sukkur, (I willhereinafter refer these Survey Nos.
3. As the "Suit Land" for the sake of convenience). The said Khatanmal under a will distributed his 14 annas share in the suit land amongst his two sons Fakir Sobbraj and Gidumal and his wife Shrimati Sugni Bai in proportions of 3 annas and 6 pies share to each one of them and himself retained a, share of 3 annas 6 pies. It was further provided in the said will that if Shrimati Sugni survived, her husband Khatanmal then on his demise 3 annas 6 pies share of Khatanmal will also devolve on Shrimati Sugni Bai. On the partition of the Sub-Continent Gidumal migrated to India and therefore, he became an evacuee and his share of 3 annas 6 pies in the suit land also became an evacuee property. Khutanmal later on died in Pakistan and in accordance with his will his 3 annas 6 pies share in the suit land devolved on Shirimati Sugni Bai who thus became owner of 7 annas share in the suit land. Sugni Bai also died in the 1960 and on her demise her 7 annas share in the suit land was mutated in favour of her son Fakir Sobhraj who accordingly became the owner of 10 annas 6 pies share in the suit land. The applicant alleges to have purchased the 10 annas and 6 pies share of Fakir Sobhraj in suit land through two Registered Sale Deeds. In the meantime it appears that 2.20 acres out of Survey No, 441 and 1.21 acres out of Survey No, 249 was allotted to a claimant Liaquat Hussain by the Settlement Authorities under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. 1958 in lieu of his claim for agricultural land vide Khatoni dated 31st October, 1964.
4. It further appears that Zafaryab Ali son of Liaquat Hussain (son of allottee) challenged the mutation in respect of 10 annas 6 pies share in the suit land in favour of Fakir Sobhraj which was rejected by Deputy Collector, Sukkur, and an appeal against the order was also rejected by the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Sukkur. A revision was then filed by the said Zafaryab Ali against the order of Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) before the Settlement Commissioner (Land) Sukkur, who by his order dated 21st May, 1969 held that 3 annas 6 pies evacuee share of Giddumal alone allotted to claimant Liaquat Hussain out of suit land stands. The applicant then filed an application before the Deputy Custodian, Sukkur, under section 22 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 who also held that 3 annas 6 pies share in the suit land was an evacuee property and rejected the application of applicant under section 22 of Act XII of 1957. In spite of the above orders of Settlement Commissioner (Land) Sukkur and the Deputy Custodian, Sukkur no revised Khtaoni was issued to respondent who claimed to have got the land by way of gift from his father/claimant Liaquat Hussain. The respondent on the basis of allotment (Khatoni) instituted a suit before the Civil Judge, Rohri, seeking declaration that he I s the owner of 2.20 acres and 1.21 respectively out of Surveys Nos. 441 and 249 situated in Deh Patni, Taluka Rohri, District Sukkur and also sought permanent injunction restraining the applicant from calling himself owner of more than 1.3 acres and 1.33 acres respectively of Survey Nos. 441 and 249 in Deh Patni. Both the Courts below decreed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration as well as for injunction as prayed.
5. ' Mr. Matin, learned counsel for applicant contends that the Courts below while decreeing the suit of the respondent as prayed failed to take into account the order of Settlement Commissioner (Lands) dated 21st May, 1969 and the order of Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property dated 26th July, 1972. It is contended that the parchi Taqseem Khatooni, dated 31st October, 1964 stood modified by virtue of these two orders which were produced before the trial Court but were not taken into account. It is urged by the learned counsel that after the order of Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sukkur and Deputy Custodian, Sukkur, the allotment of area out of the suit land remained valid only to the extent of 3 annas 6 pies which was the share of Gidumal in the suit land.
6. ' Mr. Ghiasuddin Baloch, the learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that the order of the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) dated 21st May, 1969 and that of the Deputy Custodian dated 26th July, 1972 considered only the 3 annas and 6 pies share of Gidumal which he inherited from his mother Sugni Bai on her demise and therefore, according to learned counsel the effect of these two orders was that the share of Gidumal to the extent of 7 annas in the suit land was held to be evacuee. It is accordingly urged that as a result of the orders of Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sukkur dated 21st May, 1969 the allotment of claimant Liaquat Hussain was confirmed to the extent of 7 annas share in the suit land. The contention of Mr. Ghiasuddin Baloch is not supported by the order of Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sukkur dated 21st May, 1969 and that of Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Sukkur dated 26th July, 1972. Besides it is rightly contended by Mr. Matin, the learned counsel for the applicant that in view of embargo contained in section 3 of Act XII of 1957 no property could be treated or declared as evacuee property after 1st January, 1957 and therefore, when Sugni Bai died and her son Gidumal inherited the property, the same could not be treated as evacuee. Be that as it may, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondent that the order of Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sukkur. Dated 21st May, 1969 and that of Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property dated 26th July, 1972 have not been challenged by any of the parties and have therefore, become final. After carefully reading the order of Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sukkur dated 21st May, 1969 and that of Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property dated 26th July, 1972 there is no doubt in my mind that only the allotment of evacuee share of Gidumal in the suit land to the extent of 3 annas and 6 pies were held to be valid.
7. I, accordingly modify the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below to the extent that the respondent is the owner of only 3 annas and 6 pies share in Survey Nos. 441 and 249, situated in Deh Patni, Taluka Rohri, District Sukkur, and applicant is restrained from asserting or claiming ownership right in respect of the same. The decree in the suit stands modified accordingly. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.