' The facts giving rise to this revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. Briefly stated are that a suit for possession of the room in question situated in property No,SW-92-R.1, Mela Ram Road, outside Bhati Gate, Lahore, was filed by Abdul Majid respondent against the petitioner-Anjuman and others on the averments that the room in dispute was transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in the name of the plaintiff/respondent vide order dated 26-11-1976 read with order dated 30-11-1977. It was further averred in the plaint that after payment of the transfer price and public dues the plaintiff was issued Permanent Transfer Deed No,16806 on 18-2-1978 and that with the issuance of this P.T.D. The plaintiff became its absolute owner. It is also contained in the plaint that in the year 1968 the occupants of the building, for the welfare of the occupants, formed an Anjuman known as Anjuman Falaho Bahbood Muhajreen and the plaintiff who was appointed its General Secretary, provided his room in dispute for the establishment of its office. It is added that the Anjuman functioned for sometime but later on it died its own natural death since no election of the office-bearers was ever conducted as required by the manifesto and no annual meeting was ever held and that the plaintiff was also asked not to act as General Secretary whereupon the plaintiff took over the possession of the room after delivering charge of the office. It is also mentioned in the plaint that in the year 1980 defendants Nos.1 and 2, Mst. Janat Bibi and Shahid Ali, asked the plaintiff that they want to revive the Anjuman and as such the possession of the room be given to them but the plaintiff did not accept it and apprehending that they will get the room in dispute forcibly, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. It is added that the status quo order was issued by the learned Civil Judge in the said suit but the defendants occupied the room forcibly in violation of the status quo order and then on spot inspection by the local commission appointed by the Court, the possession over the room in dispute was reported and hence the suit for permanent injunction became infructuous and the same was consequently dismissed by the Civil Court on 8-74981. The plaintiff/respondent further averred that as no Anjuman is functioning, the possession of defendants Nos.1 to 5 over the disputed room is not warranted by law. The suit was resisted by the defendants and the learned trial Court framed as many as eight issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. Issue No,7 is admittedly the main and crucial issue. This issue reads as under:- '7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property? OPP.
2. The parties besides oral evidence produced documentary evidence. The plaintiff/respondent produced documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 while defendants produced documents Ex.D.1 to Ex.D 24. The learned trial Court decided issue No,7 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent relying on the order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 30-11-1977 (Ex.P4) and the letter of Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the Executive Engineer dated 26-12-1978 (Ex.P13). The order dated 30-11-1977 (Ex.P4) was passed on the application dated 27-91977 of the plaintiff/respondent (Ex.D18) whereby the order dated 26-11-1976 (Ex.D17) passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was rectified.
Admittedly the room in dispute was transferred to the petitioner-Anjuman by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 26-11-1976 but vide order dated 30-11-1977 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner observed that this appears to be a clerical mistake and is rectified with the result that portion in question will stand transferred to Abdul Majeed, General Secretary, Anjuman Muhajreen. It is to be noted here that this rectification was directed without notice to and without providing opportunity of hearing to the Anjuman. The learned trial Court thus decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 19-5-1987. The petitioner then assailed the aforesaid judgment and decree by filing an appeal but the appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 26-6-1988. According to the appellate Court, the question involved in appeal was as to whom the property in question was transferred by the Settlement Department. This question was answered with the observations that the property was transferred to Abdul Majid, respondent No,1 against which the appellants have not sought any remedy and that these are the title deeds which cannot be set aside just by saying that the property in fact was transferred to the appellants. The findings returned on issue No,7 alongwith others were thus confirmed. These two judgments and decrees were then assailed by the petitioner by filing the present revision petition.
3. The appellate Court was right in observing that the simple question involved in this matter is as to whom the room in dispute was transferred by the Settlement Department. The documents relevant for the purposes of answering this question are Form dated 1-2-1974 (Ex.P1), the order dated 26-11-1976 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Ex.P3); the order dated 30-11-1977 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Ex.P4); the judgment of dismissal of suit by the trial Court (Ex.P5); the letter dated 26-12-1978 (Ex.P13) of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner addressed to the Executive Engineer (WAPDA); Transfer Order No,16806 in respect of the room in dispute and the Transfer Order No,16814 in respect of the room on 1st-floor of the same building in favour of Abdul Majid, respondent.
4. The Transfer Order No,16814 in favour of Abdul Majeed son of Abdul Ghafoor, respondent, was produced during the hearing of the revision petition as it was represented that the room which was in his personal occupation, was got transferred by him in his personal name. Learned counsel for the petitionerAnjuman submitted that the room in dispute which was in the name and use of the Anjuman was got transferred for the Anjuman and that this distinction is apparent from the fact that two separate Transfer Orders were got issued by filing two separate Forms and as such the title in the room in dispute cannot be claimed by Abdul Majeed as his personal property. The case of the petitionerAnjuman is that the learned Courts below have failed to read and interpret the two orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Transfer Orders issued in their true perspective and as such the conclusion drawn is unwarranted in law as well as arbitrary. It was added that the letter dated 26-12-1978 (Ex.P13) by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the Executive Engineer was read as saying that the disputed portion was exclusively issued to Abdul Majeed respondent, was not only misread but was also unauthorized as the office of Deputy Settlement Commissioner in 1978 did not exist and in any case no law authorizes the said officer to issue such a letter. The learned two Courts below, it was submitted, have failed to notice this aspect of the matter and as such have erred in relying on this document as it did not have any evidentiary value.
' Learned counsel for the respondent, however, relied on the two impugned judgments and the reasons given therein and prayed for the dismissal of the civil revision.
5. I have considered the respective submissions of the parties and I am of the view that there is merit in the plea that the learned two Courts below have failed to read and interpret the documents in their true perspective and as such the conclusions drawn by them cannot be sustained. The first important document to be noticed is the order dated 26-11-1976 (Ex.P3) of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. A careful perusal of this order would show that the question of disposal of various portions of the Property No,SW-92-R.1 was taken up by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner pursuant to the remand order passed on 20 appeals. One of the appeals filed was by the petitioner-Anjuman, cited at No,5. The room in dispute was then transferred in the name of- petitionerAnjuman. Then comes the order dated 30-11-1977 (Ex.P4) of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. It states that Abdul Majeed, General Secretary Anjuman Muhajreen has moved a miscellaneous application stating therein that the applicant had applied for transfer of the property in his possession in his own name but in the order dated 26-11-1976 it has been transferred to the Anjuman. It is also recorded therein that he is General Secretary of the Anjuman. On this application the order dated 30-11-1977 was passed. The Officer observed that this appears to be a clerical mistake and is rectified with the result that the portion in question will stand transferred to Abdul Majeed General Secretary, Anjuman Muhajreen. Firstly, this was not a clerical mistake and in any case, the rectification order again was that the portion shall stand transferred to "Abdul Majeed, General Secretary, Anjuman Muhajreen." This transfer order so made in the name of Abdul Majeed, General Secretary, Anjuman Muhajreen, cannot be held to be in the personal name of Abdul Majeed. This transfer as made will thus enure for the benefit and for the purposes of Anjuman. The General Secretary of Anjuman is not the title or the description of "Abdul Majeed" especially when it is admitted that another Form for the transfer of another room in the same building was filed by Abdul Majeed in his personal name describing himself as "Abdul Majeed son of Abdul Ghafoor" and the said room was got transferred in his personal name which transfer stands proved by the Transfer Order No,16814 issued describing him as "Abdul Majeed son of Abdul Ghafoor." In the presence of transfer of another room, Abdul Majeed cannot claim the room in dispute as also having been transferred in his personal name and in his personal capacity.
6. The order dated 30-11-1977, if is interpreted as transfer in the personal name of Abdul Majeed, it would be ineffective as against the petitioner-Anjuman as no power of review admittedly vested in the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in the year 1977. In this view of the matter, the reliance on the entry in the Transfer Order No,16806 in respect of the portion in dispute, wherein the transferee has been described as "Abdul Majeed son of Abdul Ghafoor, General Secretary, Anjuman Muhajreen" is of no consequence as the addition of "son of Abdul Ghafoor" in this Transfer Order in between the words "Abdul Majeed" and the "General Secretary Anjuman" is unauthorised as the said addition was not allowed in the order dated 3041-1977. Again the letter Ex P13 dated 26-12-1978 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the Executive Engineer, that the Transfer Order in respect of the portion of the property was exclusively issued in the name of "Abdul Majeed, General Secretary, Anjuman" cannot be interpreted as a document of title conferring ownership rights in Abdul Majeed in his personal capacity.
7. As regards the Form (Ex.P11) dated 1-2-1974, plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the words "Abdul Majeed, General Secretary" appear to have been interpolated later on as is apparent from the fact that an appeal was filed by the petitioner-Anjuman in its own name as is apparent from the order dated 26-11-1976 (Ex.P3) and for that reason the transfer was also made in the name of Anjuman itself. There is some merit in this submission. Even if the entry of the Form, as it presently reads, i,e. "Abdul Majeed General Secretary, Anjuman Muhajreen" initially existed, still the said Form for all intents and purposes is to be taken as an application by the Anjuman itself. It goes without saying that such Associations have to act through their office-bearers and any office bearer so representing such an Association cannot later claim that he C was acting in his personal capacity and for his personal benefit.. Be that as it may, in the present case Abdul Majeed cannot claim the room in dispute as he had obtained the transfer of another room in the same building in his personal name acting in his personal capacity. He stands estopped to claim the disputed portion as his personal property. He in any case could not have sought two Units in his personal name.
8. The plea that he had given over the charge in February, 1968 vide Charge Report Ex.P2 contradicts the respondent as according to the averments in the plaint, the Anjuman got registered in 1968 and he was appointed its General Secretary. The notice dated 11-8-1977 (Ex.P7) asking him not to act and its reply is of no consequence as the transfer had been obtained on 26- 11-1976.
9. For the reasons given above, it is held that the portion in dispute was transferred to the Anjuman and the order dated 30-11-1976 (Ex.P4) is to be interpreted to have transferred the property in dispute to the Anjuman Falaho Bahbood Muhajreen and not to Abdul Majeed in his personal name or in his personal capacity. The finding on issue No,7 returned by the learned Courts below is, therefore, unwarranted and is hereby set aside. Findings on issues Nos.1 to 6 by the learned Courts below need no change but in view of the fmding on issue No,7 returned by this Court, the suit is bound to fail and the same is hereby dismissed. This revision petition, therefore, succeeds and is hereby accepted with costs.