MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR

ORDER

Muhammad Sadiq, etc. filed a suit for declaration and possession in respect of agricultural land against Mst. Ditto, etc. widow of Fatta averring that she had been allotted land in ~hak No.74 RB. Tehsil Jaranwala, District Faisalabad for her life under custom. She gifted her entire property on 2‑5‑1959 to Muhammad Ali predecessor in‑interest of Abdul Ghafoor, etc. and that the said mutation was illegal, void and ineffective against their rights. Muhammad Ali aforementioned after attestation of mutation No.147 dated 25‑1‑1961 alienated the land in favour of Ahmad Khan, etc. which was ineffective upon their rights.

2. The suit was contested by Mst. Ditto, etc. which led to the framing of following issues:

(1) Whether the suit is improperly valued for the purposes of court‑fee and jurisdiction? OPD, if proved what is the correct valuation? OPD.

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to institute the suit by their conduct? OPD.

(3) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD.

(4) Whether Mst. Ditto inherited the suit land as limited owner? OPP.

(5) If issue No.4 is proved, whether the sale mutations as mentioned in prayer of the plaint by defendant No.l are illegal, void and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP.

(6) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is false and frivolus, if so, whether the defendants are entitled to any special costs, if proved to what extent? OPD.

(7) Relief.

After recording evidence the trial Court decreed the suit against Mst. Ditto, etc. on 15‑3‑1982 holding that mutation of gift by Mst. Ditto and subsequent mutations were illegal and void except the 1/4th share of Mst. Ditto in the suit land.

3. Feeling aggrieved Abdul Ghafoor, etc. filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad, on 27‑6‑1983 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside. Hence this second appeal.

4. It is contended that there has been a misreading of evidence by the learned Appellate

Court and the oral and documentary evidence has been ignored. Their main stay is on the application moved by Mst. Ditto in the Court of Deputy Custodian, Faisalabad for the grant of no objection certification and her admission that she could alienate the suit land to the extent of 1/4th share only. It is stated that after the said admission she could not_ have alienated the entire suit lahd.

5. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the petitioners had failed to show that the suit land had been allotted to Mst. Ditto as a limited owner. He further observed that the trial Court had relief on the orders passed by the Collector, Faisalabad in holding that Mst. Ditto was a limited owner but he did not refer to the decision of the Additional Commissioner, (Revenue) Sargodha and Board of Revenue wereby Mst. Ditto was held to be a full‑fledged owner of the suit property and competent to alienate the same.

5. I have considered the points urged by the learned counsel for the appellants. These were also urged before the learned Additional District Judge and were adequately dealt with by him. The findings arrived at by him are based on evidence and no error or defect is shown up warranting interference by this Court in second appeal. The learned trial Court had not considered the decisions of the learned Addl. Commissioner and the Board of Revenue in determining the status of Mst. Ditto and thus his findings were rightly set aside by the learned Additional District Judge in appeal.

6. Finding no substance in appeal, it is dismissed in limine,

H.B.T./M‑515/L Appeal dismissed.