1. ' The plaintiff filed a suit for possession, declaration permanent injunction and damages. One late Dr.Saghir Ahmed Hashimi who was the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs purchased agricultural land bearing survey No.157 in Deh Mehran, Tappo Malir, District Karachi in the year 1963.
2. The sale-deed was registered on 5-4-1963 a photo copy of the registered sale-deed has been filed with the plaint as well as with the affidavit of ex parte proof. The original was also produced which after examination has been returned. Before sale-deed was executed the defendants Nos.1 to 5 appeared in person ' 'fore the Mukhtiarkar and got recorded their joint statement on the statement book maintained by the Mukhtiarkar. The vendors got the name of the late Saghir Ahmed Hashmi mutated in the record of rights. Copy of record of rights in Form VII has been filed. The plaintiffs in support of their claim have filed receipts for payment of earnest money and sale consideration, permission of sale from Deputy Commissioner, Special power of attorney executed on 18-10-1961 by the defendants Nos.1 to 5 in favour of Usman one of the five vendors, special power of attorney executed by Usman in favour of Masihuddin authorises him to complete the formalities for sale, the application and receipts for payments. These documents establish that proper sale was made and the name of late Dr.Saghir Ahmed Hashimi was duly mutated in the records of rights. The title of late Dr.Saghir Ahmed Hashimi is further confirmed as he applied for conversion of the suit property into sikni land.
3. ' Late Dr.Saghir Ahmed Hashimi died on 22-8-1980 leaving the plaintiffs as his legal representatives.
4. The plaintiff No.2 used to visit the land from time to time. The fence along the lines of pegs were fixed by late Hashimi. As male members of the plaintiffs had been abroad or out of Karachi on 2-8- 1983 they applied for mutation of suit land in the name of the plaintiffs. The oral statement of plaintiff No.4 was also recorded. In August, 1985 the defendant No.4 visited the disputed property and found unauthorised encroachment. The defendant No.4 made inquiries and found that one Suleman acting as attorney of Usman and Gulabi obtained permission of the Deputy Commissioner Karachi to settle their share in suit property. This permission was used for effecting sale-deed in respect of 2 Acres and 9 ghuntas of the suit property in favour of Faiz Akhtar defendant No.6. This sale-deed was registered on 28-12-1983. The matter was agitated before the Deputy Commissioner Karachi (East) who by his order, dated 26-10-1985 held that late Dr.Saghir Hashimi was the lawful owner of land bearing survey No.157 and it has fraudulently been transferred by Usman to defendant No.6.
5. In these circumstances the plaintiffs have sought relief mentioned in the plaint. The defendants were served with the summons but they have neither appeared nor filed any written statement, even today they are absent. Considering the documents and the statement on oath made by the plaintiff No.4 which is an affidavit in ex parte proof, the plaintiffs have established their right over the land in dispute.
6. ' The defendant No.6 has not established that he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of the prior sale. I, therefore, grant declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners being the legal heirs of Dr.Saghir Ahmed Hashimi, are the lawful owner of the entire land bearing survey No.157 Deh Mehran, Tappo Malir, District Karachi and are entitled to possession. The sale-deed between defendants Nos.2 and 3 and the defendant No.6 is collusive and fraudulent and is hereby cancelled. The defendants are permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. The occupier or any one claiming any right under the defendants should hand over peaceful and vacant possession to the plaintiffs. The defendants are permanently restrained from raising any construction and transferring the plot to any third party.
7. The claim for damages has not been established as there is no independent evidence to support it.
8. The claim for damages is rejected. The suit is, therefore, decreed in the terms stated above with no order as to costs.