1996 PLP 1156 (MLD)

Muhammad Yousaf Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th February, 1996. One Ruhul Amin son of Haji Pordil of Maneri Payan brought a suit against Mst. Sher Bano and 18 others for a declaration to the effect that he was the owner of property measuring 18 Kanals 8 Marlas detailed in the plaint through purchase from Mst. Sahiba and Mst. Rawasia daughters of Abdur Rehman, defendants 11 and 12, vide Mutation 20903 attested on 19‑8‑1982. This plaintiff was non‑suited by the Additional Civil Judge, Swabi on 20‑2‑1989 to which the learned District Judge concurred on 27‑5‑1990. Ruhul Amin has not come up in revision and hence the verdict is final against him.

2. The circumstances relevant for the present are that during pendency of the aforesaid suit Ghulam Mehbub etc. (defendants 16, 17) filed a written statement that the property did not belong to them and that it had become ownership of Muhammad Quraish etc. through purchase. Muhammad Quraish etc. on 4‑11‑1988 applied for their impleadment and hence they, claiming to be the vendees from Ghulam Mehbub, Ghulam Yahya, Babu Jan and Ghulam Rabbani, were impleaded as defendants 20 to

24. They claimed having purchased 4 Kanals 8 Marlas and 2 Sarsais of land on the basis of consent decree dated 18‑5‑1983 in Suit 209/1 on the strength of which subsequently a mutation also was attested under number 21720 on 7‑3‑1984 (this mutation is inadvertently referred to by the two Courts below as 21359).

3. The process of impleadment did not come to an end because one Fazal Habib also stepped in and was impleaded as defendant 25 under the claim that the property purchased by Muhammad Quraish etc. was in fact his property through an ex pane Civil Court decree in Suit 412/1 instituted on 12‑10‑1983 and decided on 22‑5‑1984. The real trouble arose inter se the defendants when the two Courts below, during their discussion under issues 5, 6 and 10, held the decree in favour of Muhammad Quraish etc. to be valid while, during their discussion under additional issues 1, 2 and 3, the decree obtained by Fazal Habib was also declared to be valid one. Muhammad Quraish has come up in revision where his contesting opponent Fazal Habib defendant 25 has already been placed ex parte.

4. The decree in favour of Muhammad Quraish etc. in Suit 209/1 is valid I on the ground that the transaction was accepted correct by the vendors thereof and subsequently a Mutation 21720 also got attested on basis thereof on 7‑3‑1984. Moreover, it was prior in time because the subsequent suit instituted by Fazal Habib as 412/1 was instituted on 12‑10‑19.83 i.e. after the decree obtained by Muhammad Quraish. the decree in Suit 412/1 was subsequently granted on 22‑5‑1984. In the aforesaid subsequently instituted proceedings, Muhammad Quraish etc. were not impleaded as party.

5. Moreover, the decree in Suit 412/1 is not obtained by Fazal Habib (D‑25) on ground of purchase but on ground of his being owner through inheritance from his father Ghulam Haqqani who had predeceased his grandfather Fazal Rahim, the latter having died in the year 1952 and his inheritance mutation having been attested on 29‑6‑1952 under number 6667. the suit of Fazal Habib was not maintainable on another ground as well, that he had no cause of action and the locus standi to bring the suit the child of a predeceased son could not inherit from the grandfather, the latter having died in the year 1952 because such right was given to a grandchild only in the year 1961 through section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, which was not given any retrospective effect.

6. In view of the above circumstances, the purchase made by Muhammad Quraish etc. the petitioners, from Ghulam Mehbub etc. through decree dated 18‑5‑1983 in Civil Suit 209/1 and through subsequent Mutation 21720 attested, on 7‑3‑1984 was valid as compared to the decree dated 22‑5‑1984 subsequently obtained by Fazal Habib in Suit 412/1 without cause of action and locus standi. The revision petition is accordingly accepted. The decree in Suit 412/1 in case Fazal Habib v. Ghulam Rabbani is declared to be ineffective against the rights of Muhammad Quraish etc. the petitioners. Findings of the two Courts below are accordingly modified between the defendants inter se. A.A./1922/P Revision accepted.