1. M. HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, J.-- This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 4.3.1991 passed in Civil Appeal No.27/90 whereby the judgment and preliminary decree passed in Suit No.1221/85 by the It Sr. Civil Judge, Karachi Central has been maintained. The suit was filed by respondent No. 1 for administration in respect of movable & Immovable properties belonging to her mother Mahboobun Nisa. The defendants in the suit were the other daughters and the sons of the deceased. The applicant who was defendant No.6 in the suit claimed that his mother Mahboobun Nisa had sold the property to him under agreement dated 16.1.1980 and at the time of execution of agreement he had paid the entire sale consideration to his mother. His further case was that he had undertaken to pay the loan harrowed by the deceased from the House Building Finance Corporation. Both the courts below on appraisal of the evidence reached the conclusion that the applicant had failed to prove execution of agreement and payment of sale consideration and such findings have been given basically for the reason that the attestation witnesses had given contradictory evidence and were not credited worthy. The issue on payment of sale consideration of the property was also decided against the applicant. The learned advocate of the applicant has not been able to point out any non-reading or mis-reading of the evidence by the courts below.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant had raised construction of the 1st floor after execution of the agreement and therefore the courts should not have decreed the suit for the entire property and according to him the decree should have been with regard to first floor only. The contention is devoid of any force. It is an established law that any accretion to the land will go with it. Accessorius sequitur sum principal. That which is the accessory or incident goes with its principal.
3. The learned counsel has pointed out that the Nazir of the Civil Court who has been appointed Administrator of the property has issued notice to the applicant and has verbally asked him for submission of list of the movable property allegedly left by deceased in spite of the fact that the courts have given finding under Issue Nos. 3&4 that deceased Mahboobun Nisa has not left behind any valuable movable property. I have seen the judgment of the trial court and the contention of the learned advocate of the applicant to that extent is correct. He should therefore point out the above fad to the Nazir/Administrator.
4. The revision application is, therefore dismissed in limine, with above observation.