1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The appellant in this case claims that he became a member of Pir Illahi Bakhsh Housing Society on the 1st of August 1949, on payment of Rs.1,000. At this time to was employed in the Armed Services and was, therefore, invariably posted away from Karachi. It is his case that on the very same day he made this payment of Rs.1,000 for membership of the Society, he was also issued an allotment order in respect of quarter No. 818 by the Chief Organiser of the Society, Major Hassan. Thereafter, he paid another sum of Rs. 3,000 on the 10th of August 1949.
2. This quarter was before that allotted to one Mst. Saleha Khatun and it was only when she surrendered it back to the Society that it became open for allotment to another person. 7 he appellant claims that possession was in fact delivered to him of the quarter on the 10th of June 1950, by Major Hassan and the petitioner employed a contractor Chiragh Din to repair the quarter and to make certain alterations therein. While this was being done, Major Hassan, the Chief Organiser of the Society, requested the appellant, who is himself a Shia, to temporarily accommodate the respondent, who is also a Shia Maulvi and a Zakir, in the said quarter for the purposes of performance of Moharrum Majalis until the 12th day of Moharrum. The respondent, however, after having entered into occupation of the quarter, refused to give up possession thereof in spite of repeated requests and set up the claim that the quarter had in fact been allotted to him by Major Hassan in October or November 1950, after it bad been vacated by Mst. Saleha Khatun in lieu of quarter 1177 which was originally allotted to1 him after a total payment of Rs. 4,200 on two dates, namely, the 10th of May 1950 and the 24th of May 1950.
3. The Society was taken over by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in 1951. Hence the appellant first moved the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to get quarter No. 818 vacated and made over to him. Copies of these applications, which were exhibited in the case and marked as 3/1 and 3/2 dated 5th of September 1951, and 1st of November 1951, respectively, do not, however, show that at this stage the appellant made out the case that the respondent had been inducted into the quarter with his permission for a temporary period. On the other hand, in the letter of the 5th of September 1951, the appellant merely states that the quarter "has been unlawfully occupied by another party" without disclosing the name of the party concerned. In the next complaint it is stated that "Maulana Jawadul Asghar Hussain Sahib is putting up therein. He is occupying the premises illegally."
4. While this dispute was pending investigation by the Society the appel--lant on the 17th of October 1952, caused a lawyer's notice to be served on the respondent (Exh. D/19). In this it is for the first time that the case of entry by permission in October 1950, for a temporary period of a fortnight during Moherrum is made out. This was followed by an application under section 18 of the Karachi Small Causes Court Act on the 5th of November 1952.
5. While this application was pending decision, the Society decided the case and by its resolution of the 7th of June 1953 (Exh. 12) confirmed the allotment of quarter No. 818 in the name of the respondent and directed that the claim of the appellant should be registered with the Society for another quarter.
6. The application under section 18 was allowed by the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court on the 23rd of December 1954, but the ejectment was stayed for a short period of time under section 24 of the said Small Causes Court Act to enable the respondent to file a suit under section 26 of the said Act in the Chief Court of Sind at Karachi. The suit was filed on the 19th of February 1955, but it was transferred later to the Court of the District Judge on the 13th of July 1956. It' was ultimately dismissed on the 31Et of October 1964, by the Additional District Judge, who held that the quarter in dispute had been legally allotted to the appellant in 1949-50 and, therefore the subsequent confirmation of allotment on the 7th of June 1953, in favour of the respondent conferred no legal right upon him.
7. The respondent No. 1 went up in appeal to the High Court. It first came up before a learned Single Judge who referred it to a Division Bench. The Division Bench then admitted the appeal on the 28th of January 1965, and stayed the ejectment.
8. After recording this additional evidence, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that this document was not a reliable document and that it appeared to have been subsequently created.
9. The duplicate copy (Exh. P. 6) which was relied upon by the appellant did not give the date on which the original was issued but it contained at the top two dates, namely, 1-8-1949 and 10-10-49.
10. The appellant maintained that these were the two dates on which he had paid Rs. 1,000 and Rs.
11. 3,000 respectively, but the Court, after an elaborate examination of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the payment of the sum of Rs. 3,000 on 10-10-49 was false. In fact, this payment of Rs. 3,000 was made on 14-10-1950. Actually no receipt was produced for the payment of this sum of Rs. 3,000 as there is in the books produced by the clerk of the Society only a counter--foil of a receipt of the payment of Rs. 3,000 on 14-10-1950 (Exh. P. 10).
12. Again, on the back of this duplicate (Exh. P. 6) there is an endorsement in the handwriting of Major Hassan under which a date has been given which reads as if it is 10-6-52. But on 10-6-52 Major Hassan had no longer any connection with the Society and, therefore, he could not have made any endorsement on this chit on that date It was, therefore, claimed that this was actually 10-6-50, but the High Court took the view that even if this date be 10-6-50 it does not assist the appellant, because, if the payment of Rs. 3,000 was made only on 14-10-50, the endorsement on the reverse of P. 6 could not have been made on 10-6-50, nor could the quarter have been allotted merely on the initial payment of Rs. 1,000 on 1-8--9.
13. Having held that Exh. P. 6, which was the only document on which reliance was placed by the appellant in support of his claim to the allotment of quarter No. 818, was a spurious document, the Court came to the con--clusion that no allotment order had been issued in favour of the appellant in respect of quarter No. b18. Further support for this conclusion was also found from the fact that in respect of this allotment order (Exh. P: 6) there was no corresponding counterfoil in the counterfoil book produced by the clerk of the Society, although for every other allotment order a corresponding counterfoil was available.
14. The fact that the appellant had not made out any case of temporary allotment in his letters which he wrote to the Society in 1951 also went against the appellant. The appeal was, accordingly, allowed and the eject--ment order was vacated but only nominal compensation of Rs. 10 was allowed to the respondent..
15. The appellant obtained leave to appeal from this Court on the 24th of February 1969, on two grounds, namely ; (1) as to whether the High Court could have set aside the order under section 18 of the Karachi Small Causes Court Act without clearly finding that the respondent had title to the pre--mises in dispute, and (2) whether unauthorised occupation of quarter No. 818 by the respondent could become legal possession or ripen into full allotment by subsequent ratification, if the quarter in dispute had, in the meantime, been allotted to someone else.
16. So far as the first question is concerned, learned counsel relies on the High Court's finding that even the respondent had not been able to prove any allotment order in his favour in respect of the quarter in dispute and hence the High Court was "unable to hold that the plaintiff has proved the allotment of this quarter at that time". The question of the title of the respondent was thus found against him. He should not, therefore, have been allowed to retain the quarter.
17. Now the question before the High Court was as to whether the order under section 18 of the Karachi Small Causes Court Act had been rightly made in favour of the appellant. The answer to this question depended on whether the appellant had title to the quarter or not. It was not necessary for the High Court at this stage to consider whether the respondent had title to the quarter. It was for the appellant to prove that he had title to the quarter ; otherwise he was not entitled to eject the respondent, even though the latter was a trespasser in the quarter. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court does not stiffer by reason of the fact that it has not found the respondent to have established title to the quarter in dispute. The question to which the High Court rightly addressed itself was as to whether the appellant had made out title to the quarter in order to be entitled to the ejectment order.
18. Learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal did not address the Court on the second point but confined himself to challenging the finding of the High Court about the genuineness of the allotment order Exh. P.
6. But from the evidence on the record to which reference has been made earlier in this judgment, it appears to us that the finding of the High Court, which is based on a careful examination of all the relevant evidence, is unassailable. It does not suffer from any misreading of evidence or non-consideration of material evidence. Hence this finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court.
19. Having examined the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in this appeal, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the conclusion of the High Court that Exh. P. 6 was a wholly spurious document. Therefore, if the genuineness of Exh. P. 6 is not accepted, the foundation of the claim of the appellant to quarter No. 818 falls to the ground as has been held by the High Court.
20. This appeal must, therefore, fail and is, accordingly, dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.