IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

C.R. No._____________/2001

1. Hameed Sons of Bahar, caste Rajpoot,

2. Suleman R/o Mouza Johar Goth, Tehsil Matli
District Hyderabad (Sind).
Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Abdul Qadeer
2. Muhammad Rafique Sons of Suleman, caste Rajpoot,
3. Muhammad Siddique R/o Mouza Billoo Wala, Tehsil
4. Abdur Razzaq & District Lodhran.
5. Nazir Ali
6. Muhammad Hanif S/o Maula Bakhsh
7. Mst. Qatban (deceased)
7(a). Muhammad Sharif
7(b). Nazeer Ahamd sons Mst. Qatban &
7(c). Muhammad Mursaleen Ali Muhammad
7(d). Mst. Toofi daughters (deceased)
7(e). Mst. Hajran
7(a) to 7(e) Rjapoot by caste, residents of Chah Matti Wala,
Mouza Billoo Wala, Tehsil & District Lodhran.
8. Mst. Siddiqan daughters Allah Bakhsh, caste Rajpoot,
9. Mst. Fatima R/o Mouza Sarai, Tehsil &
District Multan.
10.Mst. Jameela daughter of Allah Bakhsh, caste Rajpoot, R/o
Mouza Moulvi Sikandar Wala, Tehsil & District Multan.
11.Province of Punjab, through District Collector, Lodhran.
12.Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
Respondents
 Civil Revision against the judgment and
decree dated 13.6.2001 passed by Ch. Nabi
Ahmad Additional District Judge, Lodhran,
whereby he dismissed the appeal of the
petitioners/defendants filed against the
judgment and decree dated 22.9.2000 passed
by Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, Senior
Civil Judge, Lodhran, decreeing the
declaratory suit filed by the
plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 6.

CLAIM IN APPEAL: -
To set aside both the impugned judgments
and decrees of the learned lower courts and
to dismiss the plaintiffs’ suit with cost.

Value of Civil Revision: - Rs. 400/- as mentioned in

the decree sheet of the Trial Court.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That brief facts of the case as per averments of the plaint of the
suit of respondents/plaintiffs No. 1 to 6 are that the land in
dispute originally owned and possessed by their uncle namely
Allah Bakhsh, who died in India prior to the creation of Pakistan
and the land in question was transferred in favour of his widow
Mst. Saeeda as limited owner under the Customary Law. After
the division of the sub-continent, Mst. Saeeda Bibi, the said
widow of Allah Bakhsh deceased, on her migration to Pakistan,
filed a claim. She was allotted land in lieu of the land abandoned
by her in India and now on her death, the defendants/petitioners
in league with the Revenue Staff, got sanctioned her Mutation of
inheritance No. 83 dated 11.4.91 in favour of daughter = 2/3
shares; and remaining 1/3rd shares in favour of defendants No. 1
to 3. It was alleged that this Mutation No. 83 was sanctioned
against the provision of law by showing Mst. Saeeda Bibi widow
of Allah Bakhsh as full owner. It was further alleged that the
plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 6 challenged the Mutation of
 inheritance No. 83 dated 11.4.91 by filing an appeal before the
A.C/Collector, Lodhran, which was rejected vide his order dated
22.10.91. Being aggrieved of the said order, they filed an appeal
before the Additional Commissioner (R) Multan and the same
was accepted vide his order dated 27.7.92. However, the
defendants/petitioners being aggrieved by this order of the
Additional Commissioner, preferred a Revision Petition before
Member Board of Revenue. The same was accepted vide order
dated 19.10.94. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 6
challenged the validity of the order of M.B.R. by filing a writ
petition No. 5075/94 in the Hon’ble Lahore High Court, Multan
Bench, Multan; and the same was rejected with the observation
that the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 6 may go to Civil Court if
so advised. The suit was resisted by the defendants and out of the
pleadings of the parties as many as 12 issues were framed
including issue No. 4, 7, 8 & 9 which read as under: -

Issue No. 4. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD.

Issue No. 7. Whetehr the family of Allah Bakhsh (deceased)
was governed by custom, in the matter of inheritance, if so,
what was that custom? OPP.
Issue No. 8. Whether Mst. Saeeda Bibi was only limited
owner of the suit land? OPP
Issue No. 9. Whether the orders dated 19.10.94 passed by the
Member Board of Revenue are illegal against facts, void,
ineffective against the plaintiffs’ rights and liable to
cancellation? OPP
Certified copies of plaint, written statements, issues,
judgments of Senior Civil Judge and decree are attached as
Annexes “A, B + B/1, C, D & D/1” respectively.

2. That after recording evidence, the learned Trial Court decreed the
suit in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants vide
judgment and decree dated 22.9.2000 (impugned). Certified
copies of plaintiffs’ oral evidence, documentary evidence; and
 defendants’ oral and documentary evidence are attached as
Annexes “E, E/1, F & F/1” respectively.

3. That the defendants/petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid

judgment and decree, preferred an appeal, which was dismissed
vide judgment and decree dated 13.6.2001. Hence, this Revision
Petition. Certified copy of grounds of appeal is attached as Annex
“G”. Certified copies of judgment and decree of District Judge
are attached as Annexes “H & H/1”respectively.

4. That both the impugned judgments and decrees have been passed
illegally on the following amongst others: -

GROUNDS

i) That there is no convincing evidence on the record.

That the family of Allah Bakhsh deceased was
governed by custom in the matter of inheritance and
that Mst. Saeeda inherited the land in dispute under
custom as limited owner. She was recorded in the
Revenue Record as full owner and also she was allotted
land in Pakistan in lieu of land abandoned by her in
India as full owner. To hold otherwise is based on no
evidence and as such both the learned courts below
while passing the judgments and decrees (impugned)
have acted illegally and with material irregularity.

ii) That even otherwise, the suit being barred by limitation

was bound to be dismissed. It is an admitted position
that after the enforcement of Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) Application (Removal of difficulties) Act,
XXV of 1975, the plaintiffs did not make any
application within one year as contemplated by sections
2 & 3 of the said act XXV of 1975, which was made
enforceable from 31.3.1975. Under section 2 of this act,
the last date for making such application was
31.3.1976, while the present suit was filed on 26.10.94
and as such it was hopelessly time barred. Sub section
(2) of section 1 of this act required that “the act shall
 come into force at once, but shall be deemed to have
taken effect on and from 15.3.1948.” Prior to this Mst.
Saeeda was all the time treated as full owner of the
property allotted to her in lieu of the property
abandoned by her in India. This title of Mst. Saeeda
could liable to be challenged under section 2 of the Act
XXV of 1975. The plaintiffs’ failure to challenge it
within one year of the enforcement of the said act, Mst.
Saeeda shall be have to be treated as full owner and on
her demise, her property was inherited by her legal
heirs. And Mutation No. 83 as such was sanctioned
very rightly by the A.C. Collector IInd Grade, and the
same was upheld by the learned Member Board of
Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.

Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that

this Hon’ble court may be pleased to accept the
Revision Petition and by setting aside the
impugned judgments and decrees of both the
learned courts below, the plaintiffs suit be
dismissed with cost throughout.

Humble petitioners,

Dated: 28.6.2001

Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 2216

CERTIFICATE: -
Certified as per instructions of the client,
that this is the first Revision petition on the
subject matter. No such petition has earlier
been filed before this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 C.R. No. ______________/2001

Hameed etc. Vs. Abdul Qadeer etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Hameed son of Bahar, caste Rajpoot, R/o Mouza Johar
Goth, Tehsil Matli District Hyderabad (Sind).

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned petition are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief and
nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of June 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are
true & correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.

DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 C.R. No. ______________/2001

Hameed etc. Vs. Abdul Qadeer etc.

APPLICATION U/s 151 of C.P.C. for the grant of Stay.

Respectfully Sheweth:-
1. That the above captioned Civil Revision Petition has been
filed before this Hon’ble Court.

2. That in view of the grounds of revision petition there is every

chance of success. The plaintiffs’ suit is prima facie time
barred and there is no evidence whatsoever on the record to
prove that family of Allah Bakshh deceased governed under
custom in inheritance matter. There is also no proof on the
record that Mst. Saeeda inherited the property of her husband
as limited owner. The revenue record shows that she was full
owner of the property. Both the judgments and decrees of the
learned lower courts are whimsical.

3. That the respondents No. 1 to 6 are bent upon to dispose of

this property. If they are succeeded in their designs, it will
open a further gate of litigation and the petitioners shall
suffer an irreparable loss.

4. That balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the

petitioners in that suit property be preserved till the decision
of the revision petition.

5. Affidavit is attached.
 Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this
application may be accepted and a an order be passed
keeping the suit property in status quo till the decision
of the revision petition.
APPLICANTS

Dated: __________

Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 2216

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 C.R. No. ______________/2001

Hameed etc. Vs. Abdul Qadeer etc.

STAY APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Hameed son of Bahar, caste Rajpoot, R/o Mouza Johar
Goth, Tehsil Matli District Hyderabad (Sind).

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned application are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of June 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are
true & correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.

DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 C.R. No. ______________/2001

Hameed etc. Vs. Abdul Qadeer etc.

INDEX

S. No. DETAIL OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES

1 Civil Revision.
2 Affidavit.
3 Plaint. A
4 Written Statement. B
5 Written Statement. B/1
6 Issues. C
7 Judgment & decree of S.C.J. D
8 Judgment & decree of S.C.J. D/1
9 Oral evidence of plaintiff. E
10 Documentary evidence of plaintiff. E/1
11 Oral evidence of respondents. F
12 Documentary evidence of respondents F/1
13 Grounds of Appeal. G
14 Judgment of Appeal. H
15 Decree of Appeal. H/1
16 Stay Application.
17 Affidavit.
18 Power of attorney.

PETITIONERS
Dated: ____________
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 2216

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 In re: C.M. No. __________/2001
In
W.P. No. 640/ 2001

Hameed etc. Vs. Abdul Qadeer etc.

Application under section 151 C.P.C.

for the grant of Stay Orders.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That the above captioned C.R. No. 640/2001was admitted for

regular hearing on 3.7.2001 by his lordship Mr. Justice Nazeer
Ahmad Siddiqui, J.

2. That the applicants (revision petitioners) are recorded in the

Revenue Record as owner in possession of the property in
dispute as legal heirs of Mst. Saeeda who died in the year 1990.
Copy of Register Haqdaran Zameen is Annex “J” & copy of
Khasra Girdawari is Annex “J/1”.

3. That Mst. Saeeda as per Revenue Record was full owner of the
property and on her demise, in 1990, mutation of inheritance was
attested in favour of the applicants and as such they are owner in
possession of the property in dispute and this decision of A.C.II
was upheld by the learned Member Board of Revnue vide order
dated 19.10.94 (Annex E/1 at Page 71). Against this order of
Board of Revenue, W.P. No. 5075/1994 was also dismissed vide
order dated 26.10.94 passed by the Hon’ble High Court (Annex
P3 at page 55). As such the petitioners have a good prima facie
case.
4. That respondents No. 1 to 6 are bent upon taking over possession
of the property forcibly, loss of possession has always been
considered as irreparable loss.

5. That balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the petitioners

to keep the property in status quo till final decision of the civil
revision.

Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order
restraining the respondents from dispossessing the
petitioners forcibly and to maintain status quo till the
final decision of Civil Revision.
Affidavit is attached.

Humble Applicants
Dated: __________
(HAMEED ETC.)

Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 2216
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. __________/2001

In
W.P. No. 640/ 2001

Hameed etc. Vs. Abdul Qadeer etc.

STAY APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Hameed S/o Bahar, caste Rajpoot, R/o Mouza Johar,
Tehsil Matly, District Haiderabad.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned application are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of July 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are
true & correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
DEPONENT