ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.-- This is an appeal from the order and judgment of a learned Division Bench of the Karachi High Court, dated 21-11-1974, whereby the Letters Patent Appeal filed by Ghazi Inam Nabi Perdesi and others against the judgment of the Karachi High Court on its original side, dated 23-11-1966, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts are that a building site measuring 775 square yards situate on Shahrahe Iraq, Karachi, an evacuee property, was allotted to Dr. S. Ahmad Hassan (now represented by respondents 1 to 7). On 11th January 1954, by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi. It is alleged that the appellants were occupying this plot and had raised certain constructions over their respective portions. On the promulgation of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property)
Act (XII of 1957), it became vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The plot in question was sold in favour of Dr. S. Ahmad Hassan, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 7, by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. South Zone, West Pakistan. Karachi, with the prior approval of the Central Government and a regular sale deed was executed in his favour and registered on 4-5- 1959 for a consideration of Rs.42,625. Under clause 3 of the sale deed, the Custodian of Evacuee Property, defendant (now respondent No-8), had undertaken to evict the occupants of the suit property if and when called upon by the respondents. Respondent No.8 was repeatedly requested to arrange for the eviction of the appellants but since it failed to do so, the present suit for a declaration and possession by eviction of the appellants was filed in the Court and compensation at the rate of Rs.500.00 per month from the appellants and respondent No.8 was claimed. A further compensation at the rate of Rs.500.00 per month was also claimed from the date of institution of the suit till the delivery of actual physical possession of the suit property to respondents 1 to 7.
3. The suit was contested by respondent No.8 (the Coustodian) who accepted the title of respondents 1 to 7 but denied his liability to pay any compensation. The appellants in their written statements questioned the validity of the sale deed in favour of respondents 1 to 7, some of them took the stand that they were tenants under the Custodian and had raised permanent construction on various parts of the plot in their possession. The case of appellants 2 and 8 was that they were transferees of the plots in their possession. The pleas of lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit and misjoinder of parties were also raised.
4. The pleadings of the parties resulted in the framing of as many as nineteen issues. The learned trial court recorded the evidence produced by the parties and vide its judgment and decree, dated 23-11-1966 held that respondents 1 to 7 have proved their title as the owners of the suit plot and that appellants 2 to 7 were trespassers and thus liable to dispossession. A decree for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.215.00 per month from 1-1-1960 up to the date of restoration was passed against the appeallants and respondent No.8.
5. Two Letters Patent Appeals, one by appellants 1 to 16 and the other by respondent No.8, were filed in the High Court. Both the appeals were disposed of by a common judgment by a learned Division Bench of the Sind High Court. The learned Division Bench, vide its impugned judgment, accepted the appeal of respondent No.8 holding that on sale by the Custodian the property in question went out of the ambit of the Evacuee Property Act, the Custodian lost all jurisdiction over the same and the power to evict the appellants from it vested only in respondents 1 to 7. As for the appeal by the appellants, the learned Appellate Court concurred with all the findings of the trial Court, set aside the money decree against them through judgment, dated 21-11-1974 and with the above modification their appeal was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the well considered judgments of the two Courts and we hardly find any substance in this appeal. The contesting respondents have established through reliable evidence that the plot was sold to them by the Custodian of Evacuee Property under section 25 (2) (s) of Act XII of 1957 with the prior approval of the Central Government. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the sale was invalid inasmuch as it had not been confirmed by the Custodian is fallacious in that it was the Custodian himself who had sold the property to the contesting respondents and, therefore, there did not exist any legal requirement for its confirmation once again by the same authority. As the record stands, the appellants were unauthorized occupants of the suit property and had raised construction without the permission of the Custodian or the Settlement authorities. After the sale of the plot in question in favour of the respondents, they were rightly declared as trespassers and thus liable to eviction. The contention that some of the appellants were transferees of the portions in their possession and thus could not be evicted has also no merit in that on the sale of the property in favour of the respondents, it went out of the compensation pool much prior to the alleged transfer and, therefore, the Settlement authorities had no jurisdiction to dispose of the properties in favour of the said appellants.
7. Thus finding no force in the appeal, the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.