On 28--3-1984 the respondents tiled a suit against the petitioners. It was alleged in the plaint that the father of the respondents namely, Ahmad 'Din had given a part of their house, for running of a school subject to payment of rent; that neither the rent is being paid nor, possession is being delivered to the respondents. In their written statement the plea taken was that the school stood "nationalised" and as such the property vests in the petitioners. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 12-1-1988. A first appeal filed by the petitioners was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat who dismissed the same on 9-7-1989.
2. Learned counsel today argues with reference to document Exh.D.2 that the father of the respondents had given the land free as (sadka jariah) and as such the respondents had no title in the land and the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside. No one has turned up for the respondents.
3. I have gone through the record appended with this Civil Revision. I am not at all inclined to entertain the said plea/argument of the learned counsel being raised at the first instance in this Civil Revision. I have already referred to the pleadings of the parties above. It was never the case of the petitioners that Ahmad Din had gifted away the land or made a Waqf of the same in favour of the Government. On the other hand, the plea was that the land vests in the petitioners because of its so-called nationalisation under M.L.R.
118. Besides Exh.D.2 is not a document executed by Ahmad Din or any of the respondents. This document is copy of entries in some register containing the particulars of Taleem-e-Islam Primary School. The respondents were never confronted with the said statement even if it be deemed that it was their statement. On the other hand, it had been suggested to them and their witnesses that the land stood acquired by the Government by virtue of said so-called nationalization of the School.
4. So far as the plea in the pleadings is concerned which had been sought to be proved in the course of trial, the same is also without any legal or factual basis. M.L.R. 118 was never intended to take over the properties of the persons who were running privately managed schools and colleges.
It was only the administration and the operation of the college or school which stood to vest-in the Provincial Government. The matter has since been put to rest by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America through Lahore Church Council v. The Government of the Punjab through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and another (1987 SCM R 1197), wherein it had been held that title of the properties wherein the schools were being run remained intact and remained vested in the owners thereof. No other point has been urged. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.