1. ' C.M.As. Nos. 5771 of 1996 and 6786 of 1996 have been moved by the plaintiffs on 20-10-1996 and 30-11-1996 seeking interim relief, in the first application the 'plaintiffs have sought temporary injunction to restraining the defendant from ejecting the plaintiffs or demolishing their houses on the plot of land which is the subject-matter of this dispute. In the second application they have sought injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from transferring or otherwise alienating the aforesaid plot and from raising construction thereon. C.M.A. No, 7221 of 1996 however, is an application by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 dated 17-12-1996 seeking rejection of plaint on the grounds that no cause of action has been made out it. For the sake of convenience I decided to hear the last application first.
2. ' Basically the plaintiff claimed that they have been in possession of the suit property for more than 40 years. It is alleged that the property in fact belongs to one Mst. Haleema and upon her demise came to be vested in her daughters. Mst. Wasai and Mst. Zainab (defendant No,7) whose names were registered in the mutation. According to the plaintiffs through various acts of fraud and manipulation and the use of official influence of the defendant No,2, who was a Senior Officer of the District Administration, a power of attorney was obtained from the owner in favour of the defendant No,3 and thereafter the property in question was gifted in favour of the defendant No,1, who is the wife of the defendant No,2, The details whereof need not be referred to.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Rana Muhammad Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for defendants Nos. 1 and 3 in respect of this application and Mr. Mehar Hussain A. Mesawa learned counsel for the plaintiffs in opposition thereto. Both the counsel have dilated upon several factual and legal aspect of their respective cases. I do not however, consider it necessary to discuss all of them. It is indeed true that for the purpose of deciding this application normally the averments in the plaint are to be assumed to be correct. Nevertheless apart from making allegations relating to the conduct of the defendants, the only basis on which the plaintiffs have claimed any right in the property is their continuous uninterrupted possession for more than 40 years which according to them was adverse to the right, interest and title of the defendant No,7, the original owner, and her so called successors-in-interest. Mr Rana Muhammad Ahmad Khan learned counsel for the defendant has, however, contended that right to immovable property could not be asserted any longer on the basis of adverse possession in terms of section 28 of the Limitation Act on account of the judgment of the Shariat Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maqbool Ahmed v. Hakummat-e- Pakistan (1991 SCM R 2063). In the aforesaid case section 28 of the Limitation Act was held to be repugnant to the Injunction of Islam and would cease to have effect from 31-8-1991.
4. ' In view of the above it is evident that the plaintiff cannot seek a declaration as to their right in the property nor could claim the right to possess the same or any other interests unless conferred by law or a valid contract, the existence whereof has not been asserted. As to the alleged fraudulent act of the defendant learned Counsel referred inter alia to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jamaluddin v. Pari Jan (1985 SCMR 403) wherein allegations of fraud and misrepresentation were made against the defendant in obtaining the allotment of an immovable property. Nevertheless the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the appellant's claim holding that:-- ' "It is also clear on record that the appellants were neither allottees nor were they considered to be entitled to the transfer of plot in dispute, therefore, they had no locus standi to file the suit or challenge the transfer of the plot in dispute in the name of defendant."
5. In view of the above, I am constrained to hold that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and must, therefore, be rejected. The plaintiffs, however, are free to approach the administrative agencies for regularisation of the property in their possession or disciplinary action against the concerned officials if so advised. The plaint stands rejected and the other C.M.As. Are accordingly disposed off as having become infructuous.
6. Plaint rejected.