1. ' The appellant's predecessor-in-interest Muhammad Ibrahim Brohi filed an application for ejectment against respondent No, 1 and one Z.A. Khan. During the pendency of the case Muhammad Ibrahim Brohi died and his legal heirs were brought on record who are the appellants.
2. Z.A. Khan also died during pendency of the proceedings and his legal heirs were brought on record who are respondents Nos. 2, 3, and 4 in this appeal. The ejectment application was filed by Muhammad Ibrahim Brohi is respect of open land measuring 1,200 sq. Yards which was alleged to have been rented out in the year 1961 to respondent No,1 under an agreement, dated 1-11-1961. This plot of land is situated in Sher Shah village. It was alleged that respondent No,1 has not paid the rent and that it has been sublet unauthorized to Z.A. Khan. The respondent No, 1 in his written statement pleaded that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also pleaded that the application is vague and the demised premises has not been defined. It was stated that respondent No,1 was the tenant of the appellant in respect of a plot but he had surrendered the possession of that plot to the appellant. He further pleaded that the plot in his possession is not the plot which was let out by the appellant but it is a different plot. The respondents Nos. 2 to 4 also submitted their written statement and stated that they had never occupied the plot through respondent No,1 or heirs of Aslam Khan nor they are sub-tenant of any one of them. It was pleaded that Z.A. Khan had been in possession of the plot for the last 15 years and had raised construction on it. It was further pleaded that in Suit No, 1955 of 1971 filed by Brohi, Z.A. Khan was 'termed as transpires. The learned counsel framed preliminary issue relating to relationship of the parties and after recording the evidence held that relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist and the application was dismissed.
3. The main dispute seems to be about the identity of the plot. Admittedly the area in which the disputed plot exists is not a surveyed A area and, therefore, no survey number has been assigned to the plot by the Revenue Authorities. In these circumstances it was necessary for the appellants to have produced some reliable and independent evidence to define the identity of the property.
4. Mere statement of the appellant was not sufficient to establish this fact. The plot is situated in Sher Shah Village which is claimed by the appellants and Karachi Municipal Corporation. This dispute was subject-matter of a Suit No, 80/1950 filed by Muhammad Ibrahim Brohi which was dismissed and the appeal is pending before a Bench of this Court. The appellant has mainly relied on the statement of respondent No,1 made by him in Suit No, 80/50 in which he had stated that under an unregistered lease-deed he had taken a go down on rent from Muhammad Ibrahim in Sher Shah Village which had boundary wall without any construction. The respondent admitted the agreement Exh.5-A but explained that after the statement was recorded he surrendered the possession to Muhammad Ibrahim. It seems that he took up the plea that presently he is occupying plots bearing Nos. 391 and 391-A and paying rent to K.M.C. Two receipts produced by him show that in respect of Plots Nos. 391 and 391-A he has paid upset price and ground rent to K.M.C. In 1977. This statement is further corroborated by the Assistant Director, Land, K.M.C. Who has also testified that Plots Nos. 391 and 391-A measuring 5,000 sq. Yds. Are in the name of respondent No,1 who has paid RS,1,17,769.20 to K.M. C. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in his statement the respondent No, 1 has stated that he has taken Plots Nos. 390 and 391-A whereas the Assistant Director, Land K.M.C. Has given the numbers of plot as 391 and 391-A. This discrepancy does not discredit the statement of Shamsuddin as the receipt for payments made to K.M.C. Relate to Plots Nos. 391 and 391-A. Therefore, this is merely a mistake in giving the numbers the plots. The receipts Exhs. 6-A/1 to 6-A/7 also establish that the respondent No,1 has been paying property tax. Z.A. Khan the predecessor of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 has also denied the title of the appellant. He was in occupation of Plot No,300 of Kabari Market and this number was allotted by K.M.C. The area of the plot is 5,000 sq. Yds. Therefore the total area in occupation of the respondents is 10,000 sq. Yards whereas the appellant claims to have rented out plot of land measuring 1,200 sq. Yards. The respondents claim that plots bearing number assigned by K.M.C. Have been allotted to them and the appellants. Have nothing to do with these plots. In the face of this evidence the respondent No, 1 has created doubt in the appellant's title to the plot. The appellant's claim that the plot in possession of the respondent No, 1 is owned by them has been shaken and rebutted by the evidence produced by the respondents. In view of uncertain and unauthentic. Evidence produced by the appellants it is not possible to hold that they are the owners of the disputed land and had ex rented out to the respondents. The entire dispute between the parties revolves round the ownership of the land. In such circumstances it is always preferably that landlord should first clear his title through the Civil Court and then institute proceeding for ejectment. Reference can be made to 198 SCMR 1064.
5. ' The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellants should first clear their title to the land and thereafter may institute proceedings according to law.