JUDGMENT SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.- This second appeal is directed against theconcurrent judgments of the learned to courts whereby the suit and appeal of the appellants were dismissed. It arises out of the following considerations.
2. On 14-6-1972, the appellants filed a suit seeking a declaration that the proceedings and the order dated 4.3.1972 of the Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner were illegal, based on fraud and forgery and was therefore, in-operative qua the rights of the appellants- plaintiffs. A permanent injunction was also claimed by way of consequential relief to the effect that the defendants-respondents be restrained from interfering in the possession of the appellants on the land in dispute on the basis of the said order.
3. According to appellants-plaintiffs, one Sipadar, a refugee right-holder, on migration to Pakistan, died in Lyallpur (now Faisalabad) in 1948. Siraj Din, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners No.1 to 4 submitted a claim for the estate of said Sipadar which was not received back from the Central Record office after verification. However, the claim filed by Abdul Ghafoor respondent No.1 for the property left by Sipadar was verified, on the basis of which allotments were made, in name of Sipadar in three villages. It was also averred that on the basis of a general power of attorney from Sipadar, which according to the Petitioner/plaintiff was forged, Abdul Ghafoor alienated the allotted land to respondents No. 2 to 5.
4. A perusal of the plaint further shows that an application under-Sections 10 & 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act, 1958) was filed by Siraj Din. This application was dismissed vide order dated 4.3.1972 (Ex.P-2). Against the said order, Settlement Revision No. 54 of 1972 was filed before this Court, which was dismissed by a learned Division Bench on 31.5.1972 (Ex D-l) on the ground that appellants were not persons aggrieved. Thereafter on 14.6.1972, the present suit was filed.
5. Respondents No. 1 and 2 to 5 submitted separate written statements on which the following preliminary issue was framed"Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try this suit?"
6. The learned Trial'Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.1.1974 reached the conclusion that section 22 read with Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act) 1958, ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The petitioners took an appeal before the learned District Court and the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court was affirmed on 5.6.1975.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question of jurisdiction was mixed question of law and fact and could not have been answered on the basis of finding on the preliminary issue alone. He further contended that although the plaint was not happily drafted, yet, the. Substance thereof was that the petitioners sought to enforce their right to inherit the estate of Sipadar deceased. Henext contended that Civil Court was of the Court of ultimate jurisdiction and was competent to determine the controversy.
8. On the other had, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the matter stands concluded by the judgment of this Court in Settlement Revision No. 54 of 1972. According to him, apart from bar of jurisdiction under Section 25 of the afore-said Act, the matter could not have been re-agitated before the Civil Court.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
The learned to Courts correctly arrived at the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted by virtue of Sections 22 & 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act) 1958. Reference may be made to Faiz- ud-Din Ahmad Versus Mulwmmad Yousaf and another (1988 S.C.M.R. 1289).
In this precedent case, the plaint was rejected on the basis of ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the said order was affirmed in first appeal. The matter was brought before this Court in the second appeal and the learned Single Judge of this Court, describing the finding of the Ascis Court, describing the. Finding of the Additional Settlement Commissioner as superficial, sketchy and inconclusive granted the declaration sought by respondent No.1 in the said case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan set aside the judgment of this Court and held that Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act) ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of matter which the Central Government or any officer appointed under the Act was empowered by or under the Act to determine. It was further held that the order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, fell well within his competence and, therefore, the provisions of Section 25 were attracted.
10. A perusal or order dated 4.3.1972 (Ex P-2) shows that the allegations made by the petitioners in the suit were examined by the learned Settlement Commissioner and it was found that the claim was filed by Sipadar himself and after verification the land was confirmed in his name. This was perfectly within his jurisdiction. These findings were affirmed by this Court, although, the 'Mukhbari' application was dismissed on the ground that the appellants were not persons aggrieved. Thus , the order dated 4.3.1972 attained finality. The matter could not be agitated before the Civil Court.
11. A perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiff did not claim any relief in respect of the property allotted to Sipadar. No relief was claimed either against sales made by respondent No.1 in favour of respondents No. 2 to 5. On'this score as well the plaintiffs could not be granted any relief in respect of the property of Sipadar
12. According to the appellants' on showing, Sipadr was a refugee right holder and his claim was never verified in their favour. Although, according to him, they had filed it. They never perused the matter before the claims authorities and, thus, the appellants could not have any right to urge in respect of the estate of Sipadar as a refugee right holder. Be that as it may, a dispute regarding inheritance of a refugee right holder could not be raised before the Civil Court.
13. The appellants and their predecessor have been agitating against the allotment in favour of Sipadar. The application under Sections 10 & 11 was filed by Siraj Din and Settlement Revision was filed by the appellants. They disowned the application under Sections 10 & 11 but the filing of the Settlement Revision by them was suppressed from the plaint. Thus, on the one had, they asserted that the allotment in favour of Sipadar was bogus while m the other had, they wanted a benefit of the said allotment. They could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate.
14. In view of the above, this appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. .