1995 PLP 1021 (CLC)

The defendant No.2, Abu Baker son of Umer, has also filed a written statement claiming that the Government of Oman sold the boat to one Aziz Bin Muhammad Al‑Awfi who, in turn, sold it to the defendant and that the name of the boat was changed from "Miran Pir" to "Noorul Huda" to "Saeed ul ?Hashimi". The fact that the boat bears the registration and the engine numbers mentioned in the plaint is not denied. Upon pleadings of the parties the following issues were settled: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of Motor Fishing Boat with Registration No.25661, Branded and Painted No.10288 Engine No.62284, length 18‑18 metres, Breadth 5‑6 metres and net tonnage

26. Kubuta 150 H.P., under the name of `Miranpir'. (2) Whether the subject Fishing Boat detained by Customs Authorities on 11‑3‑1990 belong to the plaintiffs or the defendant No.2. (3) Whether the boat purchased by defendant No.1 at Muscat correspond to the boat as seized by the Customs Authorities at Karachi Port? (4) Whether the detention and confiscation of the boat by the Custom Authorities at Muscat was illegal and mala fide? (5) Who is entitled to the possession of the boat in question? (6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the Permanent Injunction as prayed against the defendants? (7) What should the decree be? The case came up for recording the evidence on the 12th March, 1994, when the defendants and their Counsel were absent. The hearing was therefore adjourned to today with the directions to the plaintiffs to file affidavit‑in‑ex parte proof. Such affidavit has been filed today. I have examined the record and proceedings; and my findings on the issues are as follows: Issues Nos.1 2 and 3: These issues relate to the rival claims of the plaintiffs, on the one hand, and the defendant No.2, on the other hand, to the boat in question. The boat which is now in the possession of the defendant No.2 bears the registration, branded and painted numbers and the engine numbers which are mentioned in the plaint. This fact is not in dispute; and it is admitted by the customs authorities that boat was detained by them on the 11th March, 1990. It is, therefore, clear that boat of which the ownership is claimed by the plaintiffs is the same as the one which is presently in the possession of the defendant No.2. With regard to the ownership of the boat the plaintiffs have produced registration certificate bearing No.25661 showing that they are the owners of Motor Fishing Boat, called `Meeranpir' bearing branded and painted No.10288‑B and Engine No.66284. They have also produced receipts for the payment of the purchase price. They have also produced documents to show permission to ply the boat for fishing purposes. The defendants, on the other hand, have remained absent and there is no evidence on record to support their plea that they had lawfully and bona fide acquired the ownership of the boat. The boat, therefore, belongs to the plaintiffs. Issue No.4: The plaintiffs have averred in the plaint and reiterated in the affidavit that the boat was on a lawful fishing trip on the High Seas and was not in violation of any local or international rules and was unlawfully seized by the officials of the Government of Oman. These assertions have not been rebutted. It has, therefore, to be held that the detention and confiscation of the boat by the Government of Oman was illegal. . Issue No. 5, In view of the findings on Issues Nos.1 to 4, it is obvious that the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the boat. Issue No. 6: Mr. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman does not press this issue. Issue No.7: In view of the findings on the issues above, the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration sought by them and to the possession of the boat. It is, therefore, hereby declared that the plaintiffs are legal owners of v the Motor Fishing Boat bearing Registration No.25661 and Branded and Painted No. 10288‑B with Engine No. 66284; and the defendants are hereby ordered to hand over the possession of the aforesaid boat to the plaintiffs. Mr. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman says that it may not be possible to enforce the decree for possession of the boat because it has been removed by defendant No.2 beyond the jurisdiction of this Court; and that, in that event, the only remedy of the plaintiffs will be to be paid the amount of Rs.6 lacs (with profits accrued thereon) which has been deposited by defendant No.2 with the Nazir. It appears from the record that the possession of the boat was handed over to defendant No.2 by the Nazir on the undertaking that possession would be given back to the Nazir whenever required; and the amount of Rs.6 lacs has been deposited by defendant No.2 for performance of that undertaking. The Nazir will, therefore, call upon the defendant No.2 to hand over the possession of the boat to him and upon failure of the defendant No.2 to do so, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to be paid the amount of Rs.6 lacs with accrued profits in lien of the possession of the boat. AA./G‑376/K ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Suit decreed.