1993 PLP 643 (MLD)

(11) To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any one of them entitled? My findings on the above Issues are as under:‑‑‑ (1) In affirmative. (2) In negative. (3) In affirmative. (4) In affirmative. (5) In affirmative. (6) In negative. (7) As under. (8) Not proved. (9) Not proved. (10) In affirmative. Plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profit at Rs.500 per month. Plaintiff No.1 has been examined as witness at Exh.4 and has produced documents at Exhs.4/1 to"4/12. Defendants remained absent and their side was closed. ISSUE NO.1. Exh.4/1 is letter, dated 30‑12‑1975 issued by the office of the Mukhtiarkar, Karachi West, addressed to plaintiff No.2, calling upon her to pay occupancy charges at Rs.7 per square yard for Plot (No.42/25(I)‑D/15). Exh.4/2 is `Sanad' issued by the Government of Sindh in the name of plaintiff No.2, Exh.4/3 is certified copy of the Extract from the property register maintained by the Revenue Authorities and site plan Exh.4/4 shows the location of the plot in dispute. The above document establishes the title of plaintiff No.2 in respect of the property in dispute. Exh.4/5 is an Extract of the entries maintained by the Excise and Taxed on Department in P.T.I. Register under the provisions of West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1959. In these documents the name of plaintiff No.1 is mentioned in the column of ownership. As per the entries in the said document the building is shown to be in occupation of plaintiff No.1. Exh.4/7 shows that plaintiff No.2 had preferred appeal before the Director, Excise and Taxation at Karachi against the assessment carried out by the Excise and Taxation Department in respect of the plot in dispute. Exh.4/9, which is an extract from P.T.I. Register above the name of plaintiff No.2 as owner of the plot and construction of the two rooms in occupation of the owner. Exh. 4/6 pertains to payment of property tax, Exhs.4/10 and 4/11 establish payment of taxes by plaintiff No.2, Exh.4/12 states that property tax has been paid up to June, 1984. The aforesaid '4 documents coupled with the deposition of Abdul Latif Khan, establish the ownership of plaintiff No.2 in respect of property in dispute. This issue is, therefore, answered in affirmative. ISSUE N0.2: The burden of proof of this issue is on the defendants. Since they have failed to lead evidence, this issue is replied in negative. ISSUES NOS.3 and 4: It has been deposed, by plaintiff No. 1 that the plaintiffs had permitted the defendants to occupy the plot in question in view of the fact that defendant' No.1 was in employment of the plaintiff No.1 and was inducted in the suit plot to look after the said plot and the building material kept in the plot in dispute. The defendants, therefore, are the licensees of plaintiff No.2 and since they were inducted in such, they capacity are estopped from challenging the title of plaintiff No.2. Both the issues are accordingly replied in affirmative. ISSUE N0.5: The evidence of the plaintiff shows that the plot was occupied by the plaintiff, and construction was raised by plaintiff No.1 for keeping building material and defendants were put in possession by plaintiff. This issue is, therefore, answered in affirmative. ISSUE N0.6: In view of the above findings, this issue is answered in negative. ISSUE N0.7: The plaintiff in his deposition stated that the construction was raised by him and since there is no rebuttal, it is held that the construction over the said plot has been raised by the plaintiffs. ISSUE N0.8: No evidence has been brought on record and as such ‑this issue is not proved. ISSUE N0.9: In view of Exhs.4/9 to 4/11 it is held that the property tax and so also Municipal Tax have been paid by the plaintiff No.2. Exh.4/12 further shows that property tax up to June, 1984 was paid by plaintiff No.2. It is held that all the said taxes have been paid by plaintiff No.2. ISSUE NO10: Plaintiff No.l in his deposition stated that in case the property had been rented out with construction it would have fetched rent at Rs.500 per month. It is also established that the defendants are licensees and on filing of the suit the licence stood revoked and the defendants are in unauthorized possession of the suit plot. They are therefore liable to pay mesne profit at Rs.500 per month. ISSUE NO.11: In view of the above findings of the aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed as prayed with cost excepting that so far as prayer clause (c) is concerned the mesne profits are granted from the date of suit, pendente lite and till delivery of possession to the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs.500 per month. A‑1275/K Suit decreed.