2002 PLP 1993 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 28th November, 2001. On the last date of hearing i.e. 5‑10‑2001, it was noted that Mr. Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents, had failed to appear despite repeated calls. The case was, therefore, adjourned for hearing to day. The office was directed by means of the aforesaid order, to ensure that the said order was served on Mr. Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate who was also directed to appear in Court and explain the reason for his non appearance in Court on 5‑10‑2001.

2. Today, the office has reported that Mr. Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate was duly served and given intimation of the order of this Court dated 5‑10‑2001. Notwithstanding such service/intimation, Mr. Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate has failed to appear even today despite repeated calls. His name has also appeared in the cause list for today. In these circumstances, the matter is being heard in the absence of the respondents or their learned counsel. This matter shall also be sent to the Punjab Bar Council for action considered appropriate by it under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act.

3. This petition impugns the judgment and decree, dated 7‑12‑1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha. By means of the said judgment and decree, the decision of the learned trial Court dated 30‑‑6‑1992 was reversed.

4. This matter relates to land measuring 5 Kanals which originally belonged to Mehar Chand, etc. evacuee owners. By means of a registered sale‑deed, dated 10‑9‑1947, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, namely, Syed Imdad Ali Shah purchased the suit land from the evacuee owners.

5. As per section 7 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, all evacuee property stood vested in the Custodian and was by legal fiction deemed to have always vested in the Custodian w.e.f. 1‑3‑1947. The suit land also, as such, by virtue of the above‑noted statutory provision came to vest in the Custodian. The Custodian transferred the evacuee property to Syed Imdad Ali Shah, predecessor -in‑interest of the petitioners /plaintiffs. Their title, as such, is derived from the Custodian, who, by statute, was validly vested with title in the suit property. This title as such, cannot be assailed on any of the grounds taken note of by the learned lower Appellate Court in its judgment dated 7‑12‑1992.

6. In addition to the above, I have also gone through the record of the case with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioners; It is clear therefrom that the principal reason which had prevailed with the learned lower Appellate Court while reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, was a line appearing at the foot of the aforesaid sale‑deed Exh.P.2 which described Syed Imdad Ali Shah as attorney of Ch. Muhammad Hayat, predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents. This circumstance, by itself, was not sufficient to dislodge the express conveyance made in favour of Syed Imdad Ali Shah, who was clearly shown as the purchaser of the suit land in the sale‑deed Exh.P.2. Upon reading of the said sale‑deed, I do not find any inconsistency therein. In particular, it is to be noted that Syed Imdad Ali Shah is shown as the purchaser of the suit land without any reference to Ch. Muhammad Hayat.

7. Moreover, learned counsel has pointed out that the mutation of the land also stood sanctioned in favour of Syed Imdad Ali Shah and his name appears in the Revenue Record on the basis of such mutation. Finally, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that Ch. Muhammad Hayat died issueless. During his lifetime, he had transferred by 'Tamleeq' his entire immovable property in favour of the respondents and others, who were his putative L.Rs. This property, however, was never claimed by Ch. Muhammad Hayat during his life time although he survived the execution of the sale‑deed by more than 30 years. It is also significant that while Ch. Muhammad Hayat transferred his entire property in favour of his L.Rs., he did not make any attempt to transfer the suit land.

8. All of the above circumstances are sufficient to reach .to the conclusion that Syed Imdad Ali Shah was the owner of the suit land. The learned lower Appellate Court acted with material irregularity while reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. In this view of the matter, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside. The result is that the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 30‑6‑1992 stands restored. H.B.T./B‑91/L Revision petition allowed.