' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 16-7-1999 of the Lahore High Court by which Civil Revision No,2137 of 1988 filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 20-12-1998 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore dismissed his appeal against one part of the judgment of the Trial Court and accepting the appeal of the respondents against the other part of the judgment, has been dismissed.
2. The facts forming a background of this 'case briefly stated are that properties Nos.S-1-76-S-21 and S-1-114-S-28 were admittedly evacuee properties which are adjoining each other. According to the petitioner, Property No,S-1-76-5-21, (hereinafter called as Property No,21) was allotted to Syed Yousaf, deceased, predecessor-in-interest of Muhammad Sabir/respondent No,5 by the Rehabilitation Department on 30-9-1953 which was subsequently transferred to him on 20-6-1966.
Muhammad Sabir, etc. Successors-in-interest of Muhammad Yousaf, the original transferee sold this property to one Mst. Maqsooda Begum through registered sale-deed who further sold the same to the present petitioner whereas the other property No,S-1-114-S-28 (hereinafter referred as Property No,28) was transferred to Mst. Inayat Bibi, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 3 on 14-12-1962. In the litigation before the Settlement Authorities, a question arises as to the extent of Property No,28 transferred to Mst. Inayat Bibi as a dispute was raised in respect of the portion of the same property on the ground that it was mentioned to be in possession of one Anwari Bibi on account of which it was being claimed that the portion in possession of Mst. Anwari is part of Property No,21 transferred to Syed Yousaf Ali. This dispute was taken cognizance of by the Additional Settlement Commissioner who vide his order, dated 3-11-1962 made a decision as to the extent of Property No,28 transferred to Mst. Inayat Bibi. A sketch was prepared by the Additional Settlement. Commissioner as and it was indicated in the said sketch that the portion of the property now in dispute comprising one Deorhi, a bath room, two latrines, a store-room and a staircase on the ground floor with all the corresponding portions on the floor above in possession of Anwari Begum formed part of Property No,28 transferred to Mst. Inayat Bibi. It was observed that if another portion of Property No,21 transferred to Syed Yousaf Ali was also in possession of Anwari Bibi in addition thereto, the same would not make any difference so far as the property transferred to Mst. Inayat Bibi being Property No,28 of which the abovementioned portion was held to be the part. The matter went to the Settlement Commissioner at one stage through a revision petition filed by Muhammad Sabir where he made statement that he would be satisfied if Property No,21 be allowed to stand in his name, i.e,, as successor-in-interest of Muhammad. Yousaf and Property No,28 in the name of Mst. Inayat Bibi, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in the said revision petition. This position was accepted by both the parties and, accordingly the Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated 20-6-1966 directed that Property No,21 stood transferred to Muhammad Sabir and Property No,28 to Inayat Bibi. Though earlier to this, Property No,28 of Mst.
Inayat Bibi had been demarcated as observed above by the Additional Settlement Commissioner through order, dated 3-11-1962 indicating that portion in dispute in this litigation formed part of Property No,28 and Sabir appears to have raised no objection to the said demarcation to claim that the said portion was not portion of Property No,28 but Property No,21.
3. On 20-6-1969, Mst. Inayat Bibi filed an ejectment petition before the Rent Controller to seek ejectment of Muhammad Sabir, etc., from the said portion of her property in their possession comprising one Deohri, a bath-room, two latrines, a store-room and staircase, etc., after serving upon them a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
Act (XXVIII of 1958) on the ground of default in the payment of rent and subletting. With this ejectment petition, site plan which was ultimately admitted as Exh.A-2 was produced to indicate the said portion from which the ejectment was sought, which was copy of Exh.1 on which demarcation was made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner through order, dated 3-11-1962 holding that the said portion formed part of Property No,28 of Mst. Inayat Bibi and it was not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us when questioned that this is the same portion from which ejectment was sought of Muhammad Sabir, etc., being a part of Property No,28.
4. The ejectment petition was contested by the respondents. The Rent Controller, however, accepted the ejectment petition and passed an ejectment order against Muhammad Sabir, etc., on 3-1-1974.
5. Since the present petitioner had purchased the property from Mst. Maqsooda Bibi on 24-2-1973 through registered sale-deed, therefore, he filed an objection petition against the said order of ejectment which was rejected on 31-1-1975. The suit from which the present petition has arisen was filed on 2-6-1981 seeking declaration firstly that the petitioner was the owner in possession in his own rights of the portion in dispute and that he was not bound by the ejectment order passed against Muhammad Sabir, etc., for admittedly he had occupied the property in pursuance of the said sale made in his favour prior to the institution of the ejectment petition. On the other hand.
Muhammad Sabir continued contesting the ejectment petition by filing appeal before the Appellate Court which was dismissed. Writ petition filed by Muhammad Sabir was dismissed by the Lahore High Court through judgment, dated 13-6-1981 against which petition for leave to appeal filed before this Court was also dismissed.
6. The suit was contested by the respondents i.e,, the successors-in-interest of Mst. Inayat Bibi on the ground of limitation and that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the same as he had no independent right to claim possessory rights in the property. This suit was decided by the trial Court through judgment dated 16-4-1986 in which the prayer as regards declaration of ownership made by the petitioner was rejected and the suit to that exent stood dismissed but it was held that being the person in occupation of the property was not bound by the ejectment order passed against Muhammad Sabir. Feeling aggrieved, both the parties filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore who through his judgment dated 20-11-1988 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner whereas the appeal field by the respondents was accepted and it was held that the petitioner had no independent right in the property and was bound by the order of ejectment. Civil Revision filed against this judgment by the present petitioner has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 16-7-1999 by the High Court against which leave to appeal has been sought.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following submissions in support of this petition:--
(a) That Property No,21 was re-numbered as Property No,28(2) as such the case should have been decided in the light thereof as portion in dispute which was being claimed to be part of Property No,28 of Mst. Inayat-Bibi formed part of Property No,28(2).
(b) That Property No,21 transferred to Muhammad Sabir was sold by him through registered sale- deed dated 15-2-1967 to Mst. Maqsooda Bibi who sold it to the present petitioner in 1973 who had entered the possession of the portion in question before the institution of the ejectment petition by the respondents, therefore, any ejectment order passed in favour of Muhammad Sabir without joining the present petitioner was not binding on him, as such, he had a right to maintain that the same was not executable against him and his independent right of ownership should have been considered and decided in the light thereof as in the entire previous litigation present petitioner was not party, therefore, any finding recorded therein was not binding on him.
(c) That the suit filed by the petitioner was not barred by time; for the same was filed within limitation from the date of dismissal of writ petition arising from ejectment proceedings of Muhammad Sabir on 16-6-1981 and it was after the dismissal of the said writ petition that real threat was caused to the petitioner for his eviction or dispossession.
8. None of the contentions has impressed us. It is a case where both the parties are claiming ownership rights in two evacuee properties transferred by the Settlement Department, therefore, whatever decision as to demarcation of the two properties as to extent of each by the Settlement Department was binding on the transferees and the vendees from the transferees as these orders under the relevant laws were final and could be challenged before the higher authorities appointed under the said Act. Mst. Inayat Bibi was transferred Property No:28, therefore, a question arose whether portion now in dispute was part of Property No,28 transferred to her. The Additional Settlement Commissioner demarcated Property No,28 showing its extent through order dated 3-11- 1962 on a sketch, Exh.1 in which this portion was held to be the part of Property No,28 transferred to her and Yousaf or for that matter Muhammad Sabir who was claiming to be transferee of Property No,21 could not lay claim over this portion as part of the said property. When the matter at one stage went to the Settlement Commissioner through revision petition filed by Muhammad Sabir which was disposed of as mentioned above through order, dated 20-6-1966, Muhammad Sabir felt satisfied with the declaration by the said officer that he was transferee of Property No,21 and Mst.
Inayat Bibi Property No,28 which had already been demarcated as mentioned above and this portion held to be part of her property about which Muhammad Sabir did not take any exception.
9. The claim raised on behalf of the petitioner before the High Court that Property No,21 had been re-numbered as Property No,28(2) was rightly rejected on the ground that no evidence whatsoever was produced that the said property had been so re-numbered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that those findings are based on misreading or non-reading of the record as the petitioner had produced on record in evidence the PTDs issued in favour of his predecessor-or-in- interest namely Muhammad Sabir to whom originally Property No,21 was transferred in which mention had been made to various orders that the said property had been allocated Property No,28(2). Learned counsel while raising this contention altogether lost sight of the fact that mere recording of summary of the orders allegedly made by the Settlement Authorities in the PTDs, would not be sufficient unless those orders were themselves produced in evidence in order to show that the same had been passed by the competent authority. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on the record a number of documents which show that order dated 5-9-1966 which was mentioned in the PTD as basic order through which Property No,21 was allegedly renumbered as Property No,28(2) was not available on the record of the Settlement Authorities as reported by the said Authorities when the respondents made application for obtaining the certified copy of the same. In the present proceedings, the petitioner examined two witnesses one from Property Tax Department as P.W.5 who stated that there was no record of Property No,28(2) in his office and both the properties according to his record were Properties Nos.21 and 28 respectively, P.W.6 also stated that in the record, there was no Property No,28(2) even by re-demarcation or otherwise. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents-caveator that those orders had no existence in the record, therefore, could not be given any credence as the petitioner himself made entries in the record of the PTD as one of them was a Magistrate appears to have force.
10. Even if it is admitted for the sake of arguments that Property No,21 was re-numbered as Property No,28(2), the same would not in any manner advance the case of the petitioner, for the extent of the said property would remain the same and by mere changing the number of property, the portion in dispute which was demarcated being part of Property No,28 transferred to Mst. Inayat Bibi would not become part of property number previous 21 and, re-numbered 28(2). The extent of property could not be changed by mere renumbering of the same property. The argument that the petitioner having entered the possession of the premises before the institution of the ejectment petition, therefore, should be held to have acquired independent right to occupy the same does not in the facts and circumstances of the case has any force, for the petitioner claimed ownership rights in the property as against orders of the Settlement Authorities which were final qua the original transferees and no other status was claimed by him and once his claim for ownership stands rejected, he had no right to remain in possession of the property having been delivered to him by a transferee from Muhammad Sabir who was bound by the ejectment order, therefore, he could be dispossessed in execution thereof. The argument that the threat to dispossession was caused in the year 1981 when writ petition arising from ejectment proceedings of Muhammad Sabir was dismissed, therefore, the suit filed within six years of the said date could not be held to be barred by time has also no force in the facts and circumstances of this case, for the petitioner feeling threat of being dispossessed filed objection petition in the year 1974 which was rejected, therefore, the suit was rightly held to be barred by time when filed after a period of six years as prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act. Whatever title in the property Muhammad Sabir was holding, the same could be claimed by Mst. Maqsooda Begum and Muhammad Ashraf who had purchased the property from the said Mst. Maqsooda Begum. On account of the said demarcation order, dated 3-11-1962 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Muhammad Sabir was not vested with any ownership rights in the portion of property in dispute which was declared to be part of Property No,28 of Mst. Inayat Bibi, therefore, neither Mst. Maqsooda Begum nor the present petitioner acquired any right/title in the property in dispute nor any right to occupy the same, therefore, he was under the same liability of dispossession as was Muhammad Sabir, as such, the Courts below rightly held that the petitioner had no independent right to claim possession over the property in dispute.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.