2002 PLP 2398 (YLR)

(2) Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII, rule, 11, C.P.C.? OPP (3) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? (4) Whether the suit falls within the purview of section 32 of Specific Relief Act? OPP (5) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court‑fee and jurisdiction? OPD (6) Whether the suit is filed for mis joinder and non‑joinder of necessary parties? OPD (7) Whether the suit is not within time? OPP (8) Whether the suit is false, frivolous, misconcealed and has been filed just to harass the defendants? If so the defendants are entitled to special costs? OPD (9) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action? OPD (10) Relief.

4. The learned Civil Judge decided Issue No. 1 against the plaintiffs‑respondents by observing that no title deed as such in favour of Mst. Talia Bibi with regard to the house in dispute was placed on the file. Issues Nos.2 to 8 were not pressed. As a result of finding on Issue No.1, the learned Civil Judge proceeded to dismiss the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 13‑10‑1992. However, the appeal filed by the respondent plaintiffs was accepted by reversing the finding on issue No. 1 by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 12‑5‑1993. The learned Additional District Judge rejected the documents Exh.D.1 to Exh.D.3 produced by the petitioners defendants. According to the learned Additional District Judge, Exh.D.1 pertains to the year 1916‑1917 being maintained by the L.M.C. The important aspect of this document Exh.D.1 is that in Columns Nos.3 and 4, there is mentioned House No. 1069 which is not the property in dispute nor House No. 1069 is the suit property. So, Exh.D.1 does not correspond with the stand of the petitioners‑defendants that property in dispute No.614‑A had been in their possession as owner. Similarly, the learned appellate Court placed on , reliance on Exh.D.1. According to the learned Additional District Judge, clearance certificate Exh. D.3 pertains to Property Unit No.614‑A, owned by Muhammad Shaft etc. The said certificate had been valid up to 30‑6‑1986. So, the production of these Exh.D.I to Exh.D.3 boils down the case of the petitioners (respondents in appeal) that the suit property bestowed in them perpetually as in their titlement/ ownership. The learned Additional District Judge also relied on the report of the Local Commission and reversed the finding on Issue No. l and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the well‑reasoned judgment of the learned. Civil Judge, which has been passed on the basis of correct reading of the evidence has been illegally reversed by the learned Additional District Judge. Further contends that the onus of proof that Mst. Talia Bibi, respondent, was the owner of House No.614‑A, measuring 1‑1/2 Marla has not been discharged by the respondents plaintiffs as no document showing her title has been produced on the record.

6. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents‑plaintiffs defended the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge dated 12‑5‑1993 on the ground that the finding on Issue No.1 regarding ownership of the house in dispute recorded by the learned Civil Judge was result of complete misreading of documents Exhs.D.1 to 3 in favour of the petitioners, which has been correctly read by the learned Additional District Judge.

7. The main controversy between the parties is regarding ownership of the disputed House No.614 Ward‑A measuring 1‑1/2 Marla in the vicinity of Noor Mohallah, Inside Bhatti Gate, Lahore. The title document has not been produced by either side. It is admitted position on the record that Muhammad Sultan, predecessor‑in‑interest of the parties, who had two sons and two daughters, namely, Nawab Din, Mehraj Din, Allah Rakhi and Mst. Talia Bibi, was owner of the house. In this view of the matter after the death of said Muhammad Sultan, the abovesaid sons and daughters have to inherit the property. There is no proof of the fact that the property has been partitioned between the parties. Exh.D.l copy of Record of Rights of Series for the year 1916‑1917 shows that House No.1069, Noor Mohallah was originally owned by Muhammad Sultan son of Nizam Din and the dimension of the house was 14 ft. 6 inch from the eastern side and 11 ft each from northern and southern side. Thus the total area was 148 ft. 6 inch. The respondents have placed on the file a copy of the assessment for the year 1951 1952, according to which House No.614 was in the name of Mst. Talia Bibi, predecessor in‑interest of the respondents‑plaintiffs. But, to my mind, the assessment for the year 1951‑1952 relied upon by the respondents plaintiffs is not the title document. Similarly, the respondents could not prove the exclusive ownership of the house in dispute. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the successor‑in‑interest of Mst. Talia Bibi on the ground that they could not produce any title document in favour of Mst. Talia Bibi, whereas the learned Additional District Judge in appeal decreed the suit by reversing the finding of the learned Civil Judge on Issue No. 1 and accepting the appeal of the respondents‑plaintiffs, on the basis of assessment for the year 1951‑1952. Since it is admitted position between the parties that the predecessor‑in‑interest of the parties Muhammad Sultan was the owner of the house in dispute, therefore, none of the parties can claim the exclusive ownership of the house in dispute. Resultantly the judgment and decree granted by the learned Additional District Judge dated 12‑3‑1993 is modified and it is declared that Muhammad Sultan was the owner in possession of the suit property and after his death the same was inherited by his H two sons and two daughters, namely, Nawab Din, Mehraj Din, Mst. Allah Rakhi and Mst. Talia Bibi. The petitioners and the respondents are declared to be joint owner of the house in dispute. Since Mst. Talia Bibi has been found in possession of the suit house by the Local Commissioner, therefore, the parties may seek their remedy for partition or the house in accordance with law. The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./A‑635/L Order accordingly.