1983 PLP 659 (SCMR)

(b) House No. B/123, Mohallah Chomala, Kucha Pir Tai Din, Lahore. (c) House No. A/955. Inside Taxali Gate, Lahore. (d) House No. 4/29, Shah Jahan Road, Lahore. (e) House No.

5. S. II, Shah Jahan Road, Lahore. (f) House No. 3, S. 9, Hajweri Mohallab, Lahore. (g) Building known as Haider Building" Mohni Road, Lahore ; (Khasras Nos. 3614 and 3615). (h) Cash amounting to Rs. 1,26,000." Muhammad Riaz, Respondent No. 1 herein, filed a suit for adminis tration of the; properties in the Court of Mr. Akhtar Hussain Zahid, Civil Judge, Lahore, alleging inter alts, that after the death of Mian Ghulam Haider all the above properties were administered by their mother and the income and profits of the same were provided to the heirs in accordance with‑their legal shares ; that after the death of their mother in the year 1977, defendant No. 1 (petitioner herein) started administering the properties and receiving rents and profits thereof, which came to about 9s. 21,400 per mensem, out of which the rent from the building known as Haider Building (referred to in Item No. (g) above) alone was about Rs. 20,

000. However, the said defendant (petitioner herein) did not pay to the plaintiff his share of the income from the said properties. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that the properties were not being properly administered inasmuch as they were being damaged due to the negligence of defendant No. I (petitioner herein). The case of defendant No. 1 (petitioner herein) was that so far as the houses mentioned at Serial Nos. (a) to (j) are concerned the same were undoubtedly owned by the deceased. However, the factum of the deceas ed having left cash amount of Rs. 1,26,000 was not admitted. So far as the building known as Haider Building (mentioned in Item No. (g) above' is concerned, the position taken was that the said property did not belong to Mian Ghulam Haider deceased. The said building, according to the defendant, was built on Khasras Nos. 3614, 3615 and 3616, which were occupied by him and also that the building (Haider Building) had been raised by him with his own funds long after the death of Miar Ghulam Haider in the year 1964‑66 and that he was not in peaceful enjoyment thereof ever since. In fact, he was letting out various portion, thereof on rent to the tenants. Consequently, the appointment of a Receiver for the property mentioned at serial No. (g) above did not arise. Mr. Akhtar Hussain Zahid, learned Civil Judge, Lahore, by hi; order dated 14th May, 1980 allowed the application for appointment of a Receiver. The petitioner herein challenged the order by an appeal before the Additional District Judge, which was dismissed on 5th January, 1982, He then moved the Lahore High Court by a revision petition but the same was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge by his order, dated 1811; January, 1982. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. The learned counsel, in support of this petition, has submitted the learned Civil Judge; without recording any evidence or holding an inquiry whatsoever to ascertain as to the possession on the suit properties particularly to the building in dispute, had assumed that all the properties mentioned in the plaint belonged to him. This assumption had been up held by the Additional District Judge as also by the High Court. How ever, the petitioner had disputed the title of the plaintiff, so far as the building in dispute is concerned, and had filed a large number of documents to show that the building in dispute had been in his possession that he had raised a construction thereon, and had got electricity installed therein, and started renting out the various portions of the property to the tenants. In this connection, reference was made to the receipts obtained from contractors, who built the property, electricity bills, which showed that the same were issued in the name of the petitioner herein, advertisements in the newspaper, which also showed that the petitioner herein has been advertising in the Press for renting out the various portions in the property. No consideration, it was complained, was given to all the evidence by any of the three Courts, who dealt with the matter. The criticism has some force. Hence this plea of the petitioner that he was the person in possession of the property in dispute appears to be well founded. It is next contended that a person, who is in bona fide possession the property, cannot be deprived of its possession by the appointment a Receiver and in this connection reliance is placed on M. Ataur Rehma v. Inamur Rahman (1974 S C M R 54), Sardar Wali Muhammad v. Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan Mokal etc. (P L D 1975 Lah. 492), Mst. Muhammad Bibi v. Addl. Settlement Commissioner, Khairpur and others (P L D 1976 Kar. 181) and Mst. Ghulam Zainab and others v. Mst. Tahira Sultana and others (P L D 1977 Lah. 830). We consider, therefore, that the question whether the Receiver in this case was appointed on correct legal principles, requires further consi deration. Leave to appeal is granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for confirmation of the interim order passed on 4th May, 1982, whereby the operation of the order appointing the Receiver in respect of the disputed property was suspended. We feel that the interest of the other heirs of the late Mian Ghulam Haider require to be safeguarded also. Accordingly, we would confirm the interim order dated 4th May, 1982, on the condition that the petitioner will furnish security within two months, before the trial Court, to the effect that in the event of the failure of this appeal he will pay the shares of the rents from this building to the other heirs, who are parties in the case, if it is ultimately held that this property also belonged to Mian Ghulam Haider deceased. Security Rs. 2,

500. Appeal to be made ready on the present record with permission to the parties to add further documents. It shall be put up for hearing very soon as it is directed against an interlocutory order. Leave granted.