' This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Mirpur on 3rd of July, 1991 whereby the first appeal of the appellants against the judgment and decree recorded by the learned Additional Sub-Judge, Mirpur on 22nd of February, 1989, was dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present controversy briefly stated are that plaintiff-appellants brought a suit in the Court of Additional Sub-Judge, Mirpur on 25th of January, 1986 alleging therein that plaintiff-appellants as well as pro forma defendant Mst. Arshad Begum are daughters of one Fazal (deceased). On the death of Fazal (deceased), his estate was mutated in the name of his widow Mst. Anwar Begum as limited owner, vide mutation number 41. For the construction of Mangla Dam, the landed property of Fazal (deceased) was acquired by the Government for public purposes and in lieu of this land, Mst. Anwar Begum was given land in District and Tehsil Sargodha in Chak No,. 85-S.B. Later on Mst. Anwar Begum transferred the land with connivance of Mst. Arshad Begum to one Mahboob Hussain wo obtained a decree of the suit land from the Court of Sub- Judge, Sargodha on 15th of January, 1986. Mst. Anwar Begum died on 2nd of February, 1987 as such it was contended that as she was a limited owner, therefore, on her death, it shall be presumed by fiction of law that Fazal (deceased) died on this date, thus the plaintiff-appellants in accordance with the law of inheritance were entitled to a decree to the extent of 8/11 share out of the estate left by Fazal (deceased). The plaintiff-appellants therefore, prayed that the transfer of the proprietary rights in the allotted land situated in Chak No, 85.S.B. Tehsil and District Sargodha in favour of Mst.
Anwar Begum and subsequently decree allowed in favour of Mahboob Hussain on account of arbitration between her and Mahboob Hussain by the Sub-Judge, Sargodah on 4th of January, 1986, be declared ineffective and inoperative as against the rights of the plaintiffs and pro forma defendant No,3.
3. This suit was resisted by the defendants, whereby a preliminary objection was taken that in fact the suit has been brought for the recovery of immovable property situated in Chak No, 85 S.B., Tehsil and District Sargodha, therefore, the learned Additional Sub-Judge, Mirpur had no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. The trial Court upheld the objection and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Sub-Judge, Mirpur was maintained and the appeal of the plaintiff-appellants was dismissed vide order under appeal dated 3rd of July, 1991 by the learned District Judge, Mirpur. Hence the present appeal.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant record maintained in this case.
5. In fact, no effective declaration could be allowed through a decree by any Court in Azad Kashmir in respect of the suit land which admittedly is situated in Tehsil and District Sargodah. There is no dispute that suit for recovery or declaration of any right or interest in any immovable property must be instituted in Civil Court of competent jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the property in dispute is situated. However, the powers can be given to a Civil Court to decide the rights and interest in the property lying outside the jurisdiction of that Court by a superior Court through a transfer order. In the instant case, the Courts functioning at Sargodha, are situated in Pakistan. Therefore, the dispsute with respect to the suit land situated in Tehsil and District Sargodha was wrongly instituted by the plaintiff-appellants in the Court of Additional Sub-Judge, Mirpur who had no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of the case, the appeal is without merits which stands dismissed with costs.