' This R. S. A. No, 375 of 1966 had been filed by Fazalur Rehman, the propositus of the present appellants. The propositus died during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the appellants were impleaded as his legal representatives, against the decree dated 15th of March, 1966, of the learned District Judge, Rawalpindi, who upheld the decree dated 9th of November, 1965, of the learned Civil Judge 2nd Class, Gujjarkhan.
2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit on 19th of February, 1964 against the propositus of the appellants claiming a declaration that he was a joint owner of the suit land described in the plaint and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from claiming to be its exclusive owner and further restraining him from interfering with his possession.
3. On the pleadings of the parties nine issues were framed, all of them having been decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, of the issues the most important issue being issue No, 6. "whether the plaintiff is a co-sharer in the suit property". For this, the learned Civil Judge placed reliance on Exh. P. 2 (Jamabandi of the year 1962.63) which showed that the parties were in possession as owners in equal shares and in ownership-column Niaz Ahmed is shown to be owner of the suit land. In Exh. P. 3 (Jamabandi for the year 1966-67), Mst, Hafeez Begum is shown to be the allottee of the suit land. It was held by the learned Civil Judge that since in the Jamabandi of 1962- 63 (Exh. P. 2) the plaintiff-respondent had been shown to be a co-sharer, there is a presumption of his ownership that had not been dislodged, therefore, the issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.
4. The appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge. The only Issue that was challenged before the learned District Judge was issue No, 6.
5. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant before the District Judge as before this Court is that Mit. Hafeez Begum at the time of her death was the confirmed allottee of the land.
Being the confirmed allottee, her succession would be governed in accordance with the Shariat Act and not in accordance with paragraph 46 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. Reliance has been placed on Ch. Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan etc. (1).
' On the other hand, the respondent-plaintiff relied on Muhammad Hassan-v, Mumtaz Husain t2) to show that the question o1 icheritance with regard to the rights of allotment was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation authority and the civil Court had no jurisdiction to question that. Before me the only question is whether Mst. Hafeez Begum died as confirmed allottee or only as a right-holder.
6. The evidence on the record, as has been discussed by the two Courts below is that for the first time the land was confirmed in the name of respondent-plaintiff by the Rehabilitation Authorities. It was further found that Mst, Hafeez Begum died only as a right-holder and not as a confirmed allottee. Since the land was confirmed in the name of the predecessors-ininterest of the plaintiff- respondent by the Rehabilitation authorities it was not within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the civil Court to question that act of the Rehabilitation Authorities. The concurrent findings of the two Courts below are primarily based on documentary evidence on the record; that
(1) PLD 1962 SC 42 (2) PLD 1965 Lah, 35 after the death of Mst. Hafeez Begum who died only as a right-holder, the land was allotted and confirmed in the names of the heirs of Abdullah viz., Ali Ahmad and his brothers. Ali Ahmad is the father of the plaintiff. The interest of his uncle he had apparently purchased. The above findings have neither been assailed before me by the learned counsel for the appellant nor this Court interferes into the concurrent findings of facts of the two Courts below.
7. The learned counsel has, however, raised the contention that it was the duty of the plaintiff to allege in the plaint that Mst. Hafeez Begum died only as right-holder and that the property was held by her under custom as limited owner. In the absence of such averments the inference will be deemed to be against him. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel Every factual circumstance need not be specifically averred in the plaint. C The plaint is there to disclose a cause of action based upon fundamental material facts. Every fact meant to prove a right need not be specifically alleged in the plaint. Reference may be made to Order VI, rule 2, C. P. C.
8. The second contention of the learned counsel is based on a Privy Council ruling Siddik Mohammad Shah v. Saran and others (1). This ruling is an authority for the point that where the claim has never been made in the written statement presented, no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward. This ruling does not advance the case of the learned counsel. In fact, it only lays down that if a plea for defence has not been taken, the defendant is estopped from taking the plea. Moreover, I have held earlier that the requirements of Order VI, rule 2, C. P. C. Are fulfilled if in a concise form material facts are stated in the plaint and the evidence by which a material fact is to be proved need not specifically be mentioned in the body of the plaint. The learned -counsel says that this was a material fact that should have been mentioned in the body of the plaint since on the establishment of this fact the channels of inheritance would be determined. I am not persuaded to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The plaintiff had in his plaint claimed to be owner with possession of the suit land. How and in what manner the ownership has to be proved, is a question of evidence.
9. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in this appeal which is, hereby, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
(1) AIR 1930 P C 57