Instant Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 12-12-1975 passed by the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur whereby he has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 25-3-1974 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge. Bahawalpur dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 14,780 against the defendants/respondents on account of expenses which he had borne in the construction raised on the mosque. The defendants/respondents contested the said suit by filling written statement.
3. From the divergent pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has raised any construction over the mosque, if so at what cost? OPP
(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, then whether the alleged construction was without sanction of Auqaf Department, if so, with what effect? OPD
(3) Whether the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to special costs, if so, to what extent. OPD
4. In support of his stand the plaintiff/appellant examined P.W.1 Wahid Bux, P.W.2 Maulvi Abdul Qauddous, P.W.3 Hafiz Abdul Majeed, P.W.4 Manzoor Ahmad and the plaintiff/appellant appeared himself as P.W.5. In rebuttal no evidence was adduced by the defendants/respondents.
5. After going through the evidence produced by the plaintiff/appellant, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant vide judgment and decree, dated 25-3-1974 which was confirmed by the learned District Judge vide judgment and decree, dated 12-12-1975. Hence the instant Regular Second Appeal
6. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
7. Stand of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant is that both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence adduced by him regarding the construction raised by him on the spot.
He further contended that plaintiff/appellant had carried out the construction work under the implied consent of defendant/respondent No. 1. He, thus, submits that as the plaintiff/appellant has incurred the expenses on the construction over the mosque under the implied consent of defendants/respondents, so he is entitled to its recovery.
8. Conversely, the impugned judgments and decrees have been supported by the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents.
9. The only point which requires determination in this appeal is, if the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to the recovery of Rs. 14,780 which he alleged to have spent on the construction raised on the spot.
The stand of plaintiff/appellant is that he carried out the work subject to the implied consent of defendant/respondent No. 1, under whom the defendants/ respondents Nos.2 to 4 have been working as his agent. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff/appellant has raised the construction on the spot with the implied consent of defendants/respondents Nos. 1 to 4. The question is if there is any authorisation or permission for raising the said construction. The answer is in negative.
10. Since the defendants/respondents have neither given any consent in writing nor it can be inferred from the evidence brought on record that they had their implied permission for raising the construction. So, the Courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments and decrees.
11. In the light of facts stated above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed: