Haji ABDUL KARIM And Others vs AHMED YAR KHAN And Other

1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.---This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of a learned Judge of Baluchistan High Court dated 9th October, 1985 partly allowing a revision application filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 16th June, 1983 and 30th May, 1985 by Qazi, Dalbandin and Majlis-e-Shoora, Quetta, respectively.

2. The litigation was started by respondents on 14th May, 1976 by filing a Civil Suit in the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Chaghi, under the provisions of Frontier Crimes Regulation claiming 1/4th share of the produce by way of `Haq Malkana' and seeking appellants' eviction who were alleged to be "Lath Band Bazgars".

3. The Qazi, Dalbandhi, held that respondents were owners of the suit land and the appellants were occupying the property as "Lath Band Bazgars" and were liable to pay 1/4th share of the produce by way of `Haq Malkana' and accordingly decreed the suit by the judgment dated 16th June, 1983.

4. Both the parties filed appeals challenging the above judgment and decree, respondents being aggrieved by the refusal of the relief for appellants' eviction and appellants being dissatisfied with the declaration of the ownership of the land in respondents' favour and their entitlement to receive 1/4th share of the produce. Both the appeals were heard together and decided by the Majlis-e-- Shoora, Quetta, by two separate judgments dated 30th May, 1985 with the result that appellants' appeal was dismissed and respondents' appeal was accepted and the decree for appellants' eviction was also passed against them. Appellants then challenged both the judgments in a revision application in the High Court which was partly allowed,, in that, the declaration in respondents' favour as to their being owners of the suit-land and entitlement to receive 1/4th share of the produce was maintained whereas the relief concerning appellant's `eviction on the existing cause of action was set aside.

5. Leave to appeal wars granted to examine the plea that the two Courts below ought to have decided the important question of Shishak expressly raised in the case.

6. After having heard the learned counsel in support of the above plea in the light of the record before us, we find that no exception can be taken with the impugned judgment of the High Court because all the questions raised before the High Court were adequately and properly dealt with and have been decided for cogent and proper reasons. The appeal is therefore dismissed, but, the parties are left to bear their own costs.