MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.---This appeal arises out of a suit for administration of estate filed by Muhammad Amin appellant against the respondents. The parties are legal heirs of Din Muhammad, who died on 25-7-1968.
2. In the suit filed by the appellant, it was averred that the deceased was the owner of 8 properties listed in the plaint. The suit was conceded by the sisters, but was contested by respondent No,1, who in his written statement, alleged that all the properties belonged to him and he was the owner of the same in his own right and no property devolved upon the legal heirs of Din Muhammad. It was also stated that one of the property situate in Rustam Park, Nadir Ali Shah, Bashir Ali Shah Scheme, Nawan Kot, Lahore was owned by the wife of respondent No,1.
3. The learned trial Court after framing the relevant issues recorded the evidence of the parties. By means of its judgment and decree dated 10-7-1986, the suit of the plaintiff/appellant was dismissed on the finding that Din Muhammad did not leave any property as his estate and, as such, there was nothing to be distributed among the parties.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that so far as Shop No,57/3, Barandarth Road, Lahore was concerned, the deceased Din Muhammad was the absolute owner thereof and the learned trial Court has erred in holding to the contrary. In support of this submission, our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel to the Permanent Transfer Order Exh.D-8 and Permanent Transfer Deed, Exh.D-9, both of which are in the name of Din Muhammad.
5. So far as this property is concerned, the learned counsel for respondent No,1 has taken up the position that it was actually owned by respondent No,1 who was the first allottee but the transfer order was issued in the name of his father. This argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for more than one reasons, the first of which is that both, the Permanent Transfer Order and Permanent Transfer Deed stand in the name of Din Muhammad and at no stage respondent No,1 at the lifetime of Din Muhammad come forward to claim that the property belonged to him.
6. Even otherwise there is no evidence on the record to sustain this plea. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 has only relied upon the statement of D.W.11 Muhammad Amin Butt and P.W.8 the Record Keeper of the Settlement Department. The last-named witness had admitted that respondent No,1 was the allottee of the property in dispute.
7. This statement does not advance the case. Of the respondent as allotment by itself does not confer any right or title in the property which was transferred to Din Muhammad in whose favour Permanent Transfer Order and Permanent Transfer Deed were issued. So far as the other witness is concerned, he has merely produced the record of the Excise and Taxation Department and has stated that in the record the property stands in the name of respondent No,
1. This evidence is not sufficient in itself to rebut the Permanent Transfer Deed and the Provisional Transfer Order. It appears that the name of respondent No,1 was mentioned in the record as he was allottee of the shop at one time and was carried over in the subsequent assessments. From the above it follows that the trial Court has acted illegally in holding that the abovementioned shop belonged to respondent No,1 and not his father Din Muhammad. To that extent the decree of the trial Court stands modified.
8. So far as the other seven properties which have been listed in the Schedule, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that though these properties. Stand in the name of respondent No,1 but were actually owned by the father of, the parties, Din Muhammad. According to the learned counsel the entire amount of consideration of these properties was. Paid by Din Muhammad who 'was the actual and beneficiary owner of the properties.
9. This plea cannot be examined in the present proceedings inasmuch as it is now well settled that in a suit for administration it is not permissible for the Court to go behind the document in order to find out as to who was the real and actual owner of the properties. If the properties stand in the name of a particular person no body can be permitted to say in an administration suit that the actual title vested in somebody else. If he is desirous of challenging the title he has to file a separate suit for cancellation of the documents' or for declaration, as the case may be. It was so held by this Court in Syed Mohsin Raza Bukhari and 4 others v. Syed Azra Zenab Bukhari (1993 CLC 31), Zamani Begum v. Fazal-ur-Rehman (AIR 1943 Lahore 241), Syed Mehdi Hussain Shah v. Mst.
Shadoo Bibi (PLD 1962 SC 291) and Muhammad Younus Qureshi v. Feroz Qureshi (1982 CLC 976).
In view of what has been said above, this appeal is allowed to the extent of property bearing No, 57/3, Barandarth Road, Lahore and it is held that the parties are co-sharer in the aforesaid shop. No order as to costs.