' M.AMOON KAZI, J.----This High Court Appeal has been directed against the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 3-8-1986.
2. A dispute arose between the legal heirs of Nawab Abdul Khaliq, Nawab of Mongrol. After his death in the year 1943 the respondent No,1 had succeeded as Nawab of Mongrol State. The appellant is his brother. Respondents Nos.2 to 6 arc his sisters. The suit was filed by the appellant claiming partition of the properties left by the late Nawab of Mongrol and rendition of accounts and subsequently a final decree for 2/7th share in the property in dispute. The appellant also claimed possession of the said property togetherwith net produce against his share of 2/7 for three years before filing of the suit. The suit filed by the appellant was resisted by the respondents. A preliminary objection was also raised in regard to the maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions contained in Order 12 of 1961 (reported in PLD 1961 Central Statutes, page 394).
3. The learned Single Judge on, the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed issues as follows:-- -
(1) Whether defendant No,1 as a refugee obtained compensation in cash and kind for private property of the joint family inherited by all the successors of late Sheikh Sahib Abdul Khalique?
(2) Whether the defendant No,1 filed claim for compensation on behalf of all other sharers and asked them not to file separate claim?
(3) Whether the suit property was granted to defendant No,1 as his personal property and not to the Ruling Family or Mangrol State? If yes, what is its effect?
(4) Whether law of primogeniture prevailed in and followed by Ruling Family in Mangrol State?
(5) Whether this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? If yes, what was its effect?
(6) What should the decree be?
' On the basis of the evidence recorded by the parties before the learned Single Judge Issues No,1 and 2 were decided in the negative whereas Issue No,4 was decided in the affirmative. In respect of Issue No,3, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that compensation was granted for the properties left in India as personal property of respondent No,1. Issue No,5 which related to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit was also decided by the learned Single Judge in favour of the respondents as it was held that in view of Articles 3 and 4 read with Article 7 of the said Order 12 of 1961 the jurisdiction of this Court to try the suit was barred. Articles 3, 4 and 7 of Order 12 of 1961 provide as follows:--- "3. Where any question arises directly or indirectly between persons claiming to be the heirs and successors of the Ruler of a State or claiming to succeed to the State, concerning the devolution ind distribution of any property of that State or of the Ruler, the question shall be decided by an order of the Central Government.
4. A question whether any disposition of property, whether purporting to be the property of the State or of the Ruler, has been made in the due exercise of power to make it or ought for any reason to be undone shall be deemed to be a question falling under the, preceding Article.
7. No Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any such question as is referred to in Article 3, and no Court shall call in question any order of the Central Government made under that Article or Article 5 or any proceedings connected therewith."
' Today when the matter was called in the Court only Mr. M. Ibrahim Memon has appeared on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 6. The case proceeded against respondents Nos.7 and 8 ex parte. It is pertinent to point out that we have had the advantage of hearing only Mr. Ibrahim Memon as none has appeared on behalf of the appellant. We have been waiting for Mr. Abul Khair Ansari and Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan who have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellants but none has appeared and we are not inclined to adjourn the appeal on account of the absence of the learned counsel since the appeal has been pending before this Court since 1986.
5. After going through the impugned judgment, we find that one of the main grounds upon which the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed relates to the jurisdiction of this Court. Clearly as has been observed by the learned Single Judge, Articles 3 and 4 of President's Order No,12 of 1961, which have been reproduced earlier in this judgment, clearly indicate that any dispute between the successors of a Ruler of an acceding State relating to succession or devolution and distribution of any property left by the Ruler, whether State property or private property of the Ruler, shall be decided by the Central Government (now the Federal Government). Article 7 of the said Order further indicates that the jurisdiction of the Courts in matters referred to in Article 3 has been barred and further no Court is empowered to call in question any order of the Central Government made under the said Article or Article 5 of the said Order or any proceeding connected therewith.
We have carefully gone through the memorandum of appeal filed on behalf of the appellant and no reference to this important issue can be found in the grounds of appeal. In any case, we find ourselves in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the jurisdiction of this Court is clearly barred in this case in view of Articles 3, and7 of President's Order 12 of 1961.
6. Apart from the legal issue the case of the appellant also did not find favour with the learned Single Judge on merits. The important issues in this regard are Issues Nos.1 to 4. The learned Single Judge after holding that respondent No,1 had not obtained any compensation in cash or kind for private property of the joint family inherited by all the successors of late Shaikh Abdul Khalique of Mongrol and that respondent No,1 had not filed the claim for compensation on behalf of all other sharers in the property and after further holding that compensation was granted for the properties left in India as personal property of respondent No,1, decided Issues Nos.1 to 4 against the appellant.
We find that the findings of the learned trial Court on these issues are also not open to exception.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no force in this appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
The parties are left to bear their own costs.