2004 PLP 337 (CLC)

Gul Sadber Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing; 23rd September, 2003. Impugned in this petition is the judgment and decree, dated 9-5-1996 of the Appeal Court (District Judge, Charsadda) who while setting aside the decree granted in favour of the petitioner dismissed his suit. Arguments heard and record perused. Brief but relevant facts are that the suit property was ownership of a Hindu, now evacuee and which on his demise was mutated in the names of L. Rs. of Damramil. This entry remained intact till 1947 and on the migration of the owners it went to the Central Government and thereafter to the pool and the Settlement Department allotted it to Mst. Hajira Begum a displaced person, however, Waqar Hussain acting as attorney for her, as it is alleged, fraudulently allotted the same in his name from whom the petitioner alleged to have acquired through unregistered sale-deed on the basis of which later on decree for specific performance of an agreement was obtained on 13-1-1975 in Suit No.277/1 by the petitioner. On the other hand the respondent-defendants' claim is that they have purchased the property from the last purchaser of the property, namely, Hafiz Abdul Haq and that the allotment in favour of Mst: Hajira Begum has remained intact till date. It is admitted fact on record that the allotment made in favour of Waqar Hussain, the vendor of the petitioner, the suit property was disallowed and stood cancelled under the order of the competent authority when it was found that the allotment was obtained by way or fraud and proper inquiry was conducted, therefore, the cancellation or allotment took place on 30-4-1989 through the order of the Settlement Commissioner thus on' the date of decree, dated 13-1-1975 in Suit No.27711 Waqar Hussain was nor owner of the suit-land and the decree passed in favour of the petitioner and confirmed later on is a void decree. It is settled principle of law that any such decree which is nullity and void shall be ignored even by the Executing Court when it is pressed into service, therefore, the petitioner cannot take shelter behind the said decree as he stepped into the shoes of the vendor who was having no legal title in the suit-land. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the-petitioner i.e. AJK BISE, Mirpur and 3 others v. Abdul Qayyum. Qamar PLD 2003 SC (AJ&K) 14 and Muhammad Darwaish Khan v. Bahadar Nawaz Khan and others 1995 MLD p.2011 a case decided by this Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The view taken by the learned Judge of the Appeal Court .is perfectly in accord with law and principle of justice and is based on solid and cogent evidence recorded by him at appeal stage and is also based on the Revenue Record. The conclusion drawn are-fair and the findings recorded thereon are also in accordance with the evidence recorded to which no exception can be taken, therefore, this petition is without merits which is dismissed with no order- as to costs: H.B.T./995/P Revision petition dismissed.