2021 PLP 1591 (MLD)

ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J.

Through instant Revision Application, the Applicants have challenged the Judgment and Decree dated 18.02.2011 and 28.02.2011 respectively passed by learned VII Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, whereby the Civil Appeal No.40/2010 of Applicants is dismissed and learned Trial Court's Judgment and Decree dated 18-1-2010 and 22.1.2010 respectively is maintained.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Applicant's father Late Mr. Ali Muhammad filed F.C Suit No.09/2001 for Declaration and Permanent Injunction against private Respondents with the assertion that agricultural land bearing survey No.88/A-B (8-27 acres), 89/AB (5-21 acres) and 95/3 (1-35 acres) total 16-3 acres, situated in Deh Vidh, Taluka Hyderabad belonged to one Gahimal. That after the death of said Gahimal the above-specified property devolved upon his wife namely Shrimati Riji Bai. That deceased Gahimal also owned agricultural land in another survey No.10 (2-02 acres) total 5-18 acres and survey No. 505 and 506 (28-26 acres) in Deh Rukhanpur and survey Nos.264 and 267 (10-27 acres) in Deh Sanhwar. The said properties of deceased Gahimal were subsequently declared as non-evacuee by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Central Settlement Cell, Karachi vide order dated 22.10.1978. The Applicant's (Ali Muhammad) predecessor in interest purchased Survey No.88/A, B, and 457 (12-20 acres) situated at Deh Vidh from Shrimati Riji Bai through registered Sale Deed dated 17.01.1966, and the possession was delivered to him. He also purchased survey No.89/A (1-17 acres), 89/13 (0- 4 acres), 95/3 (1-35 acres), and survey No.101 (2-02 acres) total 5-18 acres from Mst. Farhat on 18.10.1967 through registered sale deed and now is in possession with the Applicants being surviving legal heirs of deceased Ali Muhammad. The predecessor in interest of Applicants (Ali Muhammad) also asserted in the plaint that one Rehmat Ali falsely alleged that he was allotted Survey Nos.28/A and B, 89/A and B and 95/3 admeasuring 16-3 acres in satisfaction of his claim on 24.06.1960. The allotment of the said land was illegal and fraudulent as the land was non-evacuee and the settlement authorities were not competent to allot the said land to Rehmat Ali. After about 31 years, on the Application of one. Umeed Ali (Attorney of one Allah Bux) approached the Additional Deputy Commissioner-I, Hyderabad, who cancelled the mutation entry in the name of the predecessor in interest of Applicants (Ali Muhammad) and ordered to mutate the same in favour of Allah Rakha. Therefore, the predecessor in interest of Applicants (Ali Muhammad) filed Revenue Appeal which was dismissed on 29.03.1996. Thereafter, they preferred Revision Application before the Board of Revenue Sindh, which was also dismissed.

3. The gist of the Applicants case is that Khatooni dated 24.06.1960 issued in favour of Rehmat Ali is also illegal as Rehmat Ali did not exist and that the lands of deceased Gahimal were declared as non-evacuee lands; that the amendment of Khatooni in the name of Allah Rakha as well as Power of Attorney in favour of Respondents was/is also illegal.

4. On the other hand, Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 filed a joint written statement denying the claim of Ali Muhammad (predecessor in interest of the Applicants). They asserted that survey No.88/A, B (8-27 acres), survey No.89/A, B (5-21 acres) and survey No.95/3 (1-35 acres), total 16-03 acres, situated in Deh Vidh. Taluka Hyderabad did not belong to Gahimal because the said lands came in the evacuee pool after the creation of Pakistan and belong to Central Government. That the said lands were allotted to one Allah Rakha against his verified claim through Khatooni dated 24.06.1960. That the Applicants have committed fraud and forged the sale deed. Further contended that the widow of Gahimal that is, Shrimati Riji Bai did not exist therefore, the question of possession of suit land with the said widow and its sale to Applicants does not arise. That the suit land is in possession of Respondents Nos. 6 and

7. They also contended that Applicants in collusion with lower revenue staff manipulated false entries, which were rightly canceled by the competent revenue authority. That civil court has no jurisdiction to reopen the case of settlement/evacuee property after 30.06.1975. That Khatooni in the same of Rehmat Ali and Special Power of Attorney in favour of Respondent No.7 is a valid and legal document.

5. I have noticed that the Trial Court framed the following issues: i) Whether the agricultural land belonging to deceased Gehimal original owner of the described land in deh Vidh, Rukhanpur and deh Sanhwar mentioned in the plaint were declared as non-evacuee by Additional Settlement Commissioner Central Settlement Cell Karachi by his order dated 22.10.1978? ii) Whether the land S.No.88/A,B, 89/A and 95/3 area 16.3 acres deh Vidh Taluka Hyderabad does not belong to Gehimal, the same was after the creation of Pakistan went in evacuee Pool and same were allotted to Allah Rakha against his verified claim? iii) Whether the plaintiff purchased agricultural land S.Nos.88/A, B, 376, 457 admeasuring 12.20 acres situated in deh Vidh taluka Hyderabad from Shirimati Rijhi through registered sale deed No.43 dated 17.01.1906, the record of rights mutated in favour of Plaintiff? iv) Whether the plaintiff also purchased land S.No.89/A (1.17 acres), 89/13 (0.4 acres), 95/3 (1.35) acres and S.No.101 (2.2 acres) total area 5.18 acres from the land owned by late Gehimal? v) Whether the land 88/A,B, 89/A,B, and 95/3 deh Vidh area 16.3 acres was illegally allotted by Settlement authorities to one Rehmat Ali son of Syed lmdad Ali Bukhari though the same land was non-evacuee land? vi) Whether after about 31 years back one Umed Ali attorney of Allah Rakha son of Ahmed claimed to be legal heir of Rehmat Ali son of lmdad Ali on 23:05.1991 filed an application before the Additional Deputy Commissioner-I Hyderabad that name of Allah Rakha has not been mutated in the record of rights as such Mukhtiarkar Taluka Hyderabad directed to make mutation of S.Nos mentioned on issue No.4? vii) Whether the plaintiff playing fraud manipulated the false forged, bogus register sale deed, there was no existence of Rijibai? viii) Who is in possession of suit land? ix) Whether there was an entry in the record of right on the name. of the plaintiff, and the same was canceled by the authorized officer? x) Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to re-open the case or Settlement / Evacuee property after 30.06.1975? xi) Whether the order of defendants Nos.2 to 4 are illegal mala fide and without Jurisdiction? xii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in law? xiii) Whether the suit is time-barred. xiv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed? xv) What should the decree be?

6. That after recording of evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court dismissed the Suit of Applicants.

7. That the Applicants preferred Appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Hyderabad in Civil Appeal No.40 of 2010. That the learned Appellate Court framed the points of determination i.e. whether the judgment dated 18.1.2010 and decree dated 22.1.2010 passed by the Trial Court requires any interference? And, whether the Trial Court while passing the same has committed any error, illegality, or irregularity?

8. That the learned Appellate Court after hearing the parties passed the judgment with the following observation: - "Thus, in view of my above discussion, am of the considered view that appellants/plaintiffs failed to point out any illegality or irregularity committed by the trial court while passing judgment dated 18.1.2010 and decree dated 22.1.2010 in the suit, therefore, findings of the same require no interference of this Court. Resultantly, the Judgment dated 18-1-2010 and decree dated 22.1.2010 passed by the trial court is maintained, appeal in hand is dismissed with no order as to costs. Let such decree be prepared accordingly."

9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the record and the case-law cited at the bar.

10. That the entire case of Applicants is based upon Order dated 22.10.1978 passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Central Settlement Cell, Karachi Camp, Hyderabad which says that the subject property did not belong to the evacuee management. However, the aforesaid factum has been discarded by the hierarchy of Revenue Courts as well as two Courts below.

11. The main controversy between the parties is that the Respondent No.7 (Attorney of claimant Allah Rakha) filed an application before Additional Deputy Commissioner-I, Hyderabad stating therein that claimant Allah Rakha was allotted the aforesaid survey numbers. The said Application was allowed vide Order dated 30.01.1994 wherein entries in the Revenue Record of Rights in favour of Applicants were canceled on the premise that all such entries overlapped with the allotment of Allah Rakha. Such order was assailed by deceased Ali Muhammad in Appeal No.241/1994 before Additional Commissioner-I, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad. However, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 19.03.1996. The Revision was preferred before the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue Sindh, Hyderabad, which too was rejected on the point of concurrent findings. The Applicants being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders of the official Respondents filed Suit No.9/2001 for Declaration and Permanent Injunction before learned Vth Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad with the assertion as mentioned in para No. 2 supra.

12. The above discussed legal position reflects that there are findings on the issue of entitlement of subject land' by the hierarchy of Board of Revenue Forums. Also, there are findings on facts and law by the two Courts below i.e. Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, and Additional District Judge, Hyderabad. Whereas, the learned counsel for the Applicants failed to point out misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error, or illegality in the impugned Orders of two Courts below.

13. In my view, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court affirmed by the Appellate Court are neither perverse nor the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence. The oral as well as documentary evidence was fully discussed by the learned trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court in its respective judgments.

14. In view of the above, this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C., cannot interfere with the findings of the Courts below.

15. Resultantly this Revision Application is dismissed along with the pending application(s), if any, with no order as to costs. SA/M-3/Sindh Revision dismissed.