ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 20-9-1993 dismissing the petitioner' Civil Revision No. 355 of 1991 filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that an evacuee house situate in the city of Lahore which now forms the bone of contention between the petitioners and respondent No. 2, sister inter se, was transferred to their father Feroze Din, a displaced person from Amritsar and P.T.O. Was issued to him on 21-10-1959. Feroze Din is stated to have died on 6-10-1967 leaving behind three daughters viz., to petitioners from his first wife Mst. Saira Begum and respondent No. 2 Mst. Akhtar Nargis from his second wife Mst. Umatul Begum.
3. On 19-4-1974, petitioners applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Circle-III, Lahore for their substitution on the settlement record in the place of their father Feroze Din so as to obtain Transfer Order in respect of the house in dispute. They claimed that they were the only legal heirs of the deceased and did not disclose that respondent No. 2 was also his daughter. Deputy Settlement Commissioner allowed the application of the petitioners with the result that Transfer Order was issued to them on 28-6-1974. It is an admitted position that the transfer price of the house was paid/adjusted from the compensation book of Feroze Din.
4. On coming to know of the transfer of the house in dispute in favour of the petitioners, respondent No. 2 moved an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Deputy Administrator on 5-6-1980 for including her name also in the transfer document of the house. Deputy Settlement Commissioner found that the respondent was fraudulently omitted by the petitioners when they applied for P.T.O. He, therefore, by his order dated 27-9-1981 added the name of the respondent in T.O.
5. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners brought a suit in the Civil Court for a declaration that they were the exclusive owners of the house in dispute which stood transferred to them on 27-6-1974 and that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter after the repeal of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws. It was also averred by the petitioner that their father had gifted the house owned by him in Amritsar to their mother in the year 1943 and he had filed claim in respect of that house on behalf of their mother. The suit was contested by the respondent. Learned trial Court after framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence adduced by the parties dismissed the suit on 14-6-1989 holding that Feroze Din was the owner of the house abandoned by him in India; gift set up by the petitioner (plaintiffs) was not proved; claim submitted by Feroze Din in respect of the said house was in his own right; the house in dispute was transferred to Feroze Din by the settlement Department; petitioners had obtained the Transer Order in their name by fraudulently suppressing the name of their sister and that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner therefore, had the jurisdiction to recall the order procured by the petitioners by practising fraud on him. These conclusions were upheld in appeal and respondent No. 2 being one of three daughters of deceased was held entitled to 1/3rd share in the house in dispute.
6. Revision petition filed by the petitioners in the High Court also met with no better fate and was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment holding that "from an overall review of the record, it was clear that the gift of the house in India by Feroze Din to Mst. Saira Begum was not established. The claim for verification in respect of the abandoned house was filed by Feroze Din in his own right and it was verified in his name. The house in dispute was in possession of Feroze Din. He had applied for its transfer in his name. The Settlement Authorities found him entitled to its transfer and issued a Provisional Transfer Order to him. The price of the house was either paid by or adjusted from him. Except for us formal issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed, the house in dispute, for all intents and purposes, was owned by Feroze Din. But for his demise, the Transfer Order must have been issued to him. He was clothed with full rights of ownership in it by making full payment of the transfer price for it." It was further held by the learned Judge that the petitioners fraudulently managed to obtain Transfer Order in their names to the exclusion of Mst. Akhtar Nargis respondent by making a false averment before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that they.
Were the only heirs of Feroze Din deceased. It was observed that fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings and nobody could be permitted to reap and retain the benefit of its fraud. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, therefore, had the jurisdiction to undo the acts of fraud.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has sought to contend that the petitioners' mother Mst. Saira Begum was the owner of the residential house abandoned in Amristsar and the claim lodged in respect thereof by the petitioner father was on behalf of their mother. In these circumstances, it was argued, that the house in dispute though transferred in the name of the petitioners' father was in fact the property of their mother as it was transferred in lieu of the residential house owned by her in Amritsar. That being so, it was contended, that the petitioners were the exclusive owners of the house in dispute and respondent No. 2 had no right or interest therein. As noted above, these contentions have been repelled by the learned Single Judge as also by the Courts below after considering all the relevant material on record and it has been found by all the three Courts that the gift of the house in India said to have been made by Feroze Din in favour of Mst. Saira Begum, mother of the petitioners was not proved on record and that the suit house was in possession of Feroze Din and was transferred in his name. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any material misreading of evidence as could vitiate the findings of the Courts below on the questions of the alleged gift, the verification of claim for the house abandoned in India and the transfer of the house in dispute in the name of Feroze Din. That being so, all the three daughters of Feroze Din were entitled to equal shares in the house in dispute and as the petitioners admittedly did not disclose before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that respondent No. 2 also had a share in the house in dispute being their sister, the Transfer Order issued in their exclusive name was obviously procured by them through fraud and misrepresentation and as such the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had the jurisdiction to recall his previous order and to direct that the name of respondent No. 2 be also added/included in the document of permanent transfer in respect of the house in dispute.
8. In the aforesaid view of the matter, petitioners cannot make any legitimate grievance against the dismissal of their suit. There is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed and the leave sought by the petitioners is refused.