' MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---Vide permanent transfer deed dated 23-9-1964, Cirose Cinema, Rawalpindi, was transferred to M/s Muhammad Din and Company. The General Land Register maintained by the Military Estate Office shows that it was transferred to respondent Sheikh Khurshid Ahmad by way of family agreement (inheritance) under the provisions of Muhammadan Law, vide agreement dated 20-7-1965. The Cantonment Board started collecting car parking fee outside the Cinema. Sheikh Khurshid Ahmad, therefore, filed suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner before the Court of Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, claiming that the petitioner had no right to collect parking fee from the cars parked on the respondent's owned land. The suit was resisted by the petitioner. On pleadings of the parties following two issues were framed:--
(i) Whether the property in dispute forms part of the Ciros Cinema? OPP.
(ii) Relief.
2. The parties led evidence in support of their claims. On 17-114981 the learned Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, dismissed the suit. The respondent filed appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, who also maintained the judgment of the learned Civil Judge and dismissed the appeal. The respondent, therefore, filed revision petition before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, who was pleased to accept the revision petition and decreed the suit of the respondent. The petitioner has challenged the above said order of the High Court before this Court.
3. We have heard Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ghazi, Advocate Supreme Court with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner and Mirza Anwar Baig, Advocate Supreme Court with Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record, for the respondent.
4. The P.T.D. Issued by the Settlement Authorities in favour of the respondent shows that only the evacuee rights and interest in respect of the building were transferred to the respondent. There is no mention regarding the compound (land) of the building. The learned Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge dismissed the suit of the respondent, whereas the High Court decreed his suit. Whether the compound of the cinema alongwith the building was transferred to the respondent, needs reappraisal of the evidence. We are, therefore, inclined to grant leave to appeal.
Leave to appeal is granted accordingly.