1. ' The award is filed by the sole Arbitrator who was appointed in a reference made in Suit No,21 of 1982 by order, dated 27th January,1982. Both the parties have filed objection to the award.
2. ' The plaintiff instituted Suit No,21 of 1982 against the defendants and made the following prayers:-- "(a) declaration that the immovable property bearing No,23, Rohailkhund Housing Society, Haider Ali Road, Karachi is owned by the plaintiff as full owner thereof and the defendant is only a 'benami' owner;
(b) permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking possession of the said property namely, 23, Rohailkhund Housing Society, 'Haider Ali Road, Karachi;
(c) Costs of the suit;
(d) such other further/better relief and/or reliefs as this ' Honourable Court may deem meet and proper." Before written statement could be filed by the defendant in the suit, the Court by order, dated 27th January,1982 appointed Mr.A.H.Mirza, Advocate as the sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. The plaint in the suit was treated as the claim of plaintiff and defendant was directed to file his written statement before the Arbitrator on 13th February,1982, which was fixed as the date of hearing before the learned Arbitrator. It appears that the defendant in his written statement filed before the Arbitrator, besides denying various allegations made in the plaint also made a counter-claim for possession against the plaintiff. The learned Arbitrator accordingly framed the following issues:-- "(1) Whether the defendant is Benamidar of plaintiff and the real owner of the property is plaintiff?
(2) Whether counter-claim is not maintainable.
(3) What should the decree be?"
3. ' Issues Nos.1 and 2 were decided against the plaintiff and on issue No,3 which related to counter- claim of defendant the learned Arbitrator found that the counter-claim made by the defendant was not maintainable. As a result of the above findings the learned Arbitrator dismissed the suit as well as the counter-claim of defendant.
4. ' Mr.A.Rauf Khan, the learned counsel for the plaintiff at the hearing of objections contended that the findings given by the arbitrator on Issues 1 and 2 are contrary to the evidence on record. The award is a speaking one and the learned arbitrator has discussed the entire evidence produced by the parties before him. Although the Court hearing objections to an award is not entitled to reappraise the evidence produced before the Arbitrator and substitute its own finding in place of the findings given by the arbitrator but as the learned counsel for the plaintiff assailed of the findings of the learned arbitrator on the two issues being contrary to evidence on record which could not be arrived at by any reasonable person, I have gone through the entire evidence produced before the learned Aribtrator with the assistance of the learned counsel. The main contention of Mr.A.Rauf, the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that in his letter, dated 21st December,1980 written by the defendant to plaintiff the defendant gave up his claim in respect of the house in suit and asked the plaintiff to exercise his discretion with regard to it in such manner as he desired and, therefore, this conduct on the part of the defendant conclusively established that the property in suit stood in the name of defendant as a "Benamidar" of plaintiff and that plaintiff was the sole and real owner of the property. Firstly, no such inference arises from the letter of defendant dated 21st December, 1980, secondly this letter of the defendant is to be read in the context of the entire evidence produced by the parties. The learned arbitrator duly considered the import of this letter of defendant and with reference to a number of letters written by the plaintiff to the defendant between the period from 1969 to 1980, admitting that the property in suit was constructed out of the funds of defendant with the plaintiff and that the plaintiff managed and looked after the same on behalf of defendant. In some of these letters the plaintiff even rendered accounts to the defendant in respect of the expenditure incurred on the property and the income derived therefrom. The contents of these letters were not denied by the plaintiff before the arbitrator but it was contended that these letters were written by the plaintiff to the defendant to boost his morale as the defendant at the relevant time was suffering from some serious type of illness. This explanation offered by the plaintiff was not accepted by the arbitrator and the conclusions reached by him are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence or record. The mere fact that upon reappraisal of material another view of evidence is possible by the Court is not a sufficiente ground for interference with the award. In so far the objections of the defendant with regard to finding of arbitrator on the counter-claim is concerned, the same are also without any merit and the view taken by the arbitrator does not suffer from any illegality. I accordingly see no reason to set aside the award or to remit it back to the arbitrator for reconsideration. The objections to the award filed by the parties are accordingly dismissed and the award is made the rule of the Court. Decree to follow in terms of the award.