2018 M L D 904
[Balochistan]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, J
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN ---Petitioner
Versus
Haji BARAT and another ---Respondents
Civil Revisions Nos. 298 and 299 of 2007, decided on 8th November, 2017. Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ---
----Ss. 42 & 8---Qanun- e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 78, 79 & 84---Suit for declaration and
possession ---Document, proof of ---Procedure---Contention of defendant was that suit property
was sold to him and an agreement was executed between the parties ---Su it was dismissed
concurrently ---Validity ---Placement of documents on record would not serve the purpose rather
their execution was to be proved by evidence as required ---Onus to prove the document would
be on the person who relied upon the same ---Law requi red to prove not only the document
through evidence but also its contents if denied--- Proof of signature on the questioned document
was mandatory ---If document had created financial liability then production of at least two
marginal witnesses to prove its execution was necessary ---Marginal witnesses should not only
identify their signatures but they should witness the execution of document, passing of
consideration and signing of document by the parties ---Mere signature or thumb impression on a
deed was not sufficient to prove its execution--- If a party who relied on the document failed to
meet with the criteria then said document would not be considered to be proved to shift the onus on other party ---Beneficiary of agreement had to establish its execution as required ---Two
marginal witnesses, author of agreement, stamp vendor and attesting witnesses or the persons who witnessed the transaction were to be produced by the vendee ---In the present case, only one
marginal witness of the agreement had been produced by the defendant ---Findings recorded by
the Courts were based on mere presumptions ---Agreement which was basic document had not
been proved--- Instrument if pertained to some financial obligation and rendered in writing
should have been attested by two wi tnesses ---Defendant being beneficiary of transaction was
bound to establish a legal transaction but he could not succeed--- Impugned judgments and
decrees were set aside and suit was decreed ---Defendant being illegal occupant was directed to
hand over vacan t possession of suit property to the plaintiff ---Revision was allowed in
circumstances.
Gul Hassan for Petitioner.
Sheikh Muhammad Ali for Respondent No. 1 and Shai Haq Baloch, Additional Advocate
General for respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 28th July , 2017.
JUDGMENT
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J. ---Through this order Civil Revision Petition No.
298 of 2007 and Civil Revision Petition No. 299 of 2007 are intended to be disposed of for the
reason that the judgments assailed were passed in the suits filed by the parties against each other,
while the subject matter of the suits was the same, and the decision in one case have a direct effect on the fate of the other case.
2. The brief facts of the case resulted in filing of Civil Revision Petition No. 299 of 2007
were that the petitioner Muhammad Yousaf filed suit bearing No. 175 of 2000 against the respondent Haji Barat to establish his title as of owner in the immoveable property, consisting of
a kacha house built on the land bearing Khata No. 4/4, Khasra N os. 1775/1650/1233, situated in
Mohal Khushkaba Kuchlak, Tappa Kuchlak, Tehsil and District Quetta, measuring 1 rod 6 poles
(subject property). The prayers were to declare him the owner of the subject property, and the possession of Haji Barat (present res pondent) as illegal. The vacant possession of the subject
property was also sought, with an order to restrain the defendant Haji Barat from making interference therein. It was case of the plaintiff Muhammad Yousaf that the subject property initially a join t holding with his brother Muhammad Hussain, devolved upon them through
inheritance, while partitioned privately and duly recorded in the revenue record on 24th June 1992, still intact. That the defendant Haji Barat was inducted in the subject property in 1969- 70
as licensee till demand for vacation. That another piece of land adjacent to the subject property bearing Khasra No.1769/120 measuring 1 rod 6 poles, consisting of seven (07) shops constructed by his (plaintiff's) brother Muhammad Hussain were also handed over to Haji Barat on the terms
not known. That the defendant unauthorizedly constructed shops, seven in numbers, in the courtyard of the subject property in concealed manner, and dismantled the existing shops. That the act on part of the defendant Haji Barat resulted in withdrawal of the concession with a
demand to vacate the subject property, but he (Haji Barat) refused. That a legal notice was also issued on 8th July 2000, but with no reply, hence the suit.
3. The defendant Haji Barat (present respondent) in his written statement not only denied
locus standi of the plaintiff (petitioner), but also questioned maintainability of the suit, as filed
beyond the stipulated period. He was with the plea that the subject property was sold to him with posse ssion, and an agreement to the effect was executed between the parties on 26th August
1976, and the sale consideration of Rs.25,000/ - (Rupees twenty five thousand only) was also
paid at the relevant time, while on 9th May, 1977 another agreement was execut ed to
acknowledge the sale transaction. He further claimed to have purchased the property consisting of shops from real brother of the plaintiff (petitioner) namely Muhammad Hussain Khan and an agreement was also executed on 6th February 1982 to the effect . On basis of these agreements he
Haji Barat claimed himself to be the lawful owner of the subject property and justified his possession.
4. The trial court framed the following issues on 20th June, 2001:
1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of Preliminary Objections A, B, N
and O of written statement?
2. Whether the defendant purchased the house in dispute from plaintiff vide
agreement dated 26 -8-1976 and 9- 5-1977 and further purchased the shops from
brother of plaintiff namely Muhammad Hussain Khan vide agreement dated 6- 2-
1982?
3. Whether the defendant illegally dismantled the shops in dispute and re -construct
the shops on the back of existed shops?
4. Whether the plaintiff and his brothers are the owners of property in dispute and was handed over the same to defendant on humanitarian grounds?
5. Relief?
5. Both the parties produced their respective evidence. The trial court vide judgment dated
24th June 2005 arrived to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to make out a case not only on merit, but also the suit was hit by limitation, thus dismissed the suit. The decision of the trial court was questioned in appeal, but dismiss ed for want of merit vide judgment dated 23rd May
2007, still unsatisfied resulted in filing of the instant petition.
6. The judgments of the courts, trial and appellate, were questioned on the grounds that the
evidence produced was not properly appreciate d; that the findings of the trial court mainly based
on the documents i.e. agreements dated 26th August 1976 and 9th May 1977, which were neither properly tendered in evidence, nor proved as required; that the question of limitation was not dealt property as the time was computed from the date of execution of the agreement i.e. 26th August 1976, but it was overlooked that the execution of the referred to agreement was not proved; that the other suit filed by Haji Barat (the respondent) though consolidated, but the
findings were in contrary terms, that the documents, basis of the claim, were never confronted to the plaintiff Muhammad Yousaf while he was in the witness box. The prayer was for setting aside of the judgments and decrees of the courts, trial and appellate, with an order to decree the suit in the terms as prayed.
7. Civil Revision Petition No. 298 of 2007 pertained to suit No. 55 of 2002 filed by Haji
Barat (present respondent No. 1). He claimed his title as lawful owner of the property bearing Khasra Nos. 1775, 1650, 1233, 1769 and 1240, Mohal Khushkaba Kuchlak, Tappa Kuchlak,
Tehsil and District Quetta, measuring 2 rods 12 poles. It was his case that vide agreement dated 26th August 1976 he (Haji Barat plaintiff/present respondent No. 1) purchased subject property
from Muhammad Yousaf (defendant/present petitioner) in consideration of Rs. 25000/ - with
possession; that on 9th May 1977 the parties arrived to another agreement for the purpose to acknowledge the previous transaction, which was affirmed by Muhammad Hussain Khan, the
real brother of Muhammad Yousaf. That in his status as of lawful purchaser, he raised pucca construction at the site. That the subject property was not entered in his name in record of rights at the time of sale, due to the r eason it was jointly owned by Muhammad Yousaf and his brother
Muhammad Hussain Khan, despite demand, the matter was delayed and finally refused. That a property adjacent to the subject property measuring 10011 square feet, also owned by the defendant Muham mad Yousaf, was also sold to him in sale consideration of Rs. 20,000/ -,
through sale deed dated 6th February 1982. That despite valid transaction legal notice was served on him on 8th July 2000, with a demand for vacant possession of the subject property. The
prayer was for performance of the obligation on part of the defendant (present petitioner) as per
sale deeds executed between the parties. The decree was for specific performance of the agreements with a direction to defendant No. 2 Tehsildar Quetta to mutate the subject property in his (Haji Barat's) name.
8. The defendant No. 1 Muhammad Yousaf (present petitioner) denied the claim to the
extent of effecting of any sale transaction between him and Haji Barat. He was with the plea that the subject prope rty was given to Haji Barat as licensee, on condition to hand over vacant
possession whenever demanded; that seven shops in the courtyard of the subject house were constructed unauthorizedly and the shops owned by his brother Muhammad Hussain Khan were demolished without permission, thus for possession and for declaration of his title a suit had
already been filed.
9. Out of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed on 19th September 2002:
1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of preliminary legal objections A and E of written statement?
2. Whether the defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement of sale of property in dispute with plaintiff on 26- 8-1976?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed for?
4. Relief?
10. Both the parties produced their respective evidence and vide judgment and decree dated
24th June 2005 the trial court was of the view that the plaintiff succeeded to establish his case and a direction was given to defendant No. 1 (present petitioner) to per form his part of obligation
as per the sale agreement.
11. The property, which was matter in issue, was one and the same and the parties
Muhammad Yousaf and Haji Barat were before the court with a plea to have a valid title in their favour, thus entered into litigation to declare them as such. The suits were entertained and were decided by the courts, trial and appellate, through separate judgments. In view of the described facts the decision in one case have its direct impact on the decision of the other c ase, thus both
petitions were entertained jointly for a decision and to avoid any conflict in the findings.
12. The learned counsel for the parties made their submissions at length. The learned counsel
for the petitioner mainly contended that the law was not properly appreciated, and there were misappreciation of the facts. It was contended that the agreement dated 26th August 1976 was not produced in original, though marked as Ex: P/1 through plaintiffs witness No. 1 (PW -1) Shah
Jehan, nor the witness was re -called to complete the test of cross -examination, thus the document
was neither admissible in evidence, nor could be relied upon. Further, this witness unable to state the details of the transaction, the agreed price, the mode of the payment and also about handing over of the possession. It was contended that PW -3 though attested the agreements, marked as
Ex: P/1 and Ex: P/2, but unable to prove the attestation at relevant time. While PW -4 Nazar
Muhammad appeared as Stamp Vendor, but without any record, thus his statement was of no
legal significance. In addition PW -5 Ahmed Jan though identified signatures of his father on Ex:
P/2, but his statement was also unable to meet the requirement. The learned counsel referred to
the Report of the Handwriting Expe rt with the assertions that the trial court modified the order of
Additional District Judge, thus committed an illegality. Further, the basic document i.e. Ex: P/1, agreement dated 26th August 1976, was not sent for Expert's opinion, instead thereof the
agreement executed in 1982 was referred, which was not in issue. In addition the Expert was not
called in the witness box, nor allowed to be cross -examined, thus without going into test of
cross -examination the opinion tendered was of no legal effect.
13. With reference to the second petition the learned counsel for the petitioner was of the
view that the trial in both the cases were held separately, but in complete violation of the
provided procedure, the evidence recorded in one case was used in other case, that the
admissions on part of the witnesses during course of cross -examination were wrongly
appreciated, and the benefit was given to the other party in negation of the established principles, that the suit filed by the petitioner was held to be time bar red, but with no mention of the Article,
on basis whereof the calculation was made.
14. In reply the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 (Haji Barat) was of the view that the
concurrent findings of facts could not be disturbed in exercise of revisiona l jurisdiction. Further,
the marginal witnesses of Ex: P/1 appeared before the court, and succeeded to establish its execution, thus rightly relied by the courts, trial and appellate. It was contended that the report submitted by the Expert was properly appreciated which established execution of the document without any doubt. It was contended that the suit filed by Haji Barat was within time, due to the fact that the date of refusal for performance of obligation on part of Muhammad Yousaf was finally in Ju ly 2000, when a legal notice was issued, thus the suit filed in 2002 was within the
stipulated period of three years.
15. The learned Additional Advocate General (AAG) was with no arguments, as stated to
have no State interest involved in the subject prope rty.
16. The facts of the case as collected from the pleadings of the parties were that the subject
property was in joint ownership of Muhammad Yousaf and his brother Muhammad Hussain Khan, and when the property was sold it was a joint holding, that the pr ivate partition between
the brothers was effected and as a consequence the subject property entered in the name of Muhammad Yousaf in the revenue record in 1992. That Haji Barat was in possession of the subject property since 1976- 77, that there were some subsequent transactions of sale about some
other properties, that too situated in the same area. The possession of Haji Barat not a disputed fact but the parties differ in status of his occupancy. According to Muhammad Yousaf due to close relations he perm itted Haji Barat to occupy the subject property till demand, but he (Haji
Barat) misexercised the concession and raised construction without permission. The other side was with the plea to have purchased with possession the subject property in consideration of Rs. 25000/ - and an agreement dated 26th August 1976 was executed. Further, the sale was
acknowledged by the parties by executing the agreement dated 9th May 1977. Sale of some other property by Muhammad Yousaf through agreement dated 6th August 1982 w as asserted, and
also purchase of some property from Muhammad Hussain Khan vide agreement dated 14th February 1978, and construction of seven shops thereon at his own cost.
17. In view of the described facts as the ownership of the subject property and handing over
its possession to Haji Barat were not denied, thus Muhammad Yousaf succeeded to establish his
initial burden. The possession of Haji Barat not followed the title in the case in hand, rather he (Haji Barat) has to establish a valid title in his fa vour. Haji Barat claimed his right on basis of a
sale transaction between him and Muhammad Yousaf. In fact his (Haji Barat's) claim based on
three agreements dated 26th August 1976, 9th May 1977 and 6th August 1982, while the
agreement dated 14th February 1978 was in addition thereto. Thus burden was on him (Haji
Barat) to establish initially the execution of the agreement dated 26th August 1976, followed by the referred to agreements. This agreement dated 26th August 1976 was produced in evidence in both t he cases and marked as Ex: P/1 and Ex: D/1. This agreement followed by agreement dated
9th May, 1977, asserted to be executed by the parties as an acknowledgment of the sale, also a note of confirmation by Muhammad Hussain Khan brother of Muhammad Yousaf. It was also
tendered in evidence and marked as Ex. P/2 (Ex. D/2). The remaining two agreements dated 14th February 1978 and 6th February 1982 were not in issue, thus neither tendered, nor marked as exhibits. Though the subject agreements were produced and marked as exhibits, but it was not enough, as execution were denied, thus simple placement of the documents on the record would not serve the purpose, rather their execution was to be proved by the evidence as required.
18. The whole case of Haji Barat bas ed on these two agreements in writing, thus to be proved
as required by Chapter V of the Qanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (The Order). The law mandated
that the contents of the documents have to be proved either by primary or secondary evidence as mandated by Article 72 of the Order. While Article 75 of the Order required proof of document through primary evidence, subject to the exception as contained in Article 76 of the Order. While Article 78 of the Order further required proof of signature and handwriting of the person, alleged to have signed or written the document. Article 79 of the Order, 1984 further required production
of at-least two attesting witnesses of a document, required by the law to be attested, to prove its
execution. While Article 80 of the Order deals with the situation if no such attesting witness found. Article 82 of the Order describe the procedure to be adopted to prove a document when the attesting witness denied the execution or unable to recollect the execution. Article 84 of the Orde r in addition empowered a court to go into process of comparison by itself apart from
calling Expert's opinion as mandated by Article 58 of the Order.
19. In view of the stated provisions it has become evident that onus to prove a document is
on the person who rely upon it. The law mandated not only to prove its execution through
specific evidence, but also the contents, if denied. The proof of signature of the other party on the questioned document also a mandatory requirement. The provisions further spelt out the
provision of attestation of a document, if it creates a financial liability, and production of at -least
two marginal witnesses to prove its execution. Thus necessitated that the persons, cited as marginal witnesses, not only identify their signatu res, but have seen execution of the document,
passing of the consideration, signing of the document by the parties. As mere signature or thumb impression on a deed is not sufficient to prove its execution. If the party, who relied on the document, failed t o meet with the criteria, the document would not be considered to be proved,
to shift the onus on other party. On this principle the case in hand is to be considered for a decision.
20. The basic document was the agreement ( ) dated 26th August 1976. Muha mmad Yousaf
denied its execution, thus Haji Barat the beneficiary, had to establish its execution as required.
Thus at -least two of the marginal witnesses, its author, the stamp vendor, the attesting witness, or
the persons who witnessed the transaction we re to be produced by him. Thus to meet with the
requirement one of the marginal witness of the agreement Ex: P/1 Shah Jehan was produced as PW-1 in the suit filed by Haji Barat. This witness only identified his signatures on the agreement
Ex: P/1, but was unable to state any detail of the transaction, the place where the document was
executed. He even not mentioned that the agreement was signed in his presence by the parties,
nor stated about presence of the second marginal witness, nor even disclosed his name or other details. The document though marked as Ex: P/1 in his statement, but his statement was never completed for want of original document. While one Muhammad Jaffar appeared as PW -3, in
case filed by Haji Barat, to affirm the attestation of both th e agreements Ex: P/1 and Ex: P/2. His
statement was of less significance for the reasons that the agreement Ex: P/1 was executed on 26th August 1976, but was attested on 9th May 1977. While the second agreement Ex: P/2 was executed on 9th May 1977, and it was attested on the same date, but not improve its evidentiary value. For the reasons that both the agreements were got attested at the same time, while the witness (PW -3) was unable to state about execution of the document, as they were not written in
his presence, nor the parties signed the agreements in his presence. Thus he was unaware of the
actual transaction.
21. Nazar Muhammad, the Stamp Vendor appeared as PW -4 in the case filed by Haji Barat.
Though he was with the statement that the stamp papers, on which the agreements were written, were sold by him in 1976- 77, but it was his statement that he was an employee o f Chaudhary
Imdad Ali the Stamp Vendor, and the record was also with the referred to person. He unable to produce the relevant Register in support. In absence of the relevant entry the oral deposition was of no legal significance. PW -5 Ahmed Jan was produc ed to identify the signature of his father
Abdul Jabbar, described to be deceased, on agreement dated 9th May 1977, but his statement was not admissible for want of requirement of Article 80 of the Order. Nothing produced in support of PW -5. No other person appeared in whose presence Abdul Jabbar signed the deed.
Haji Barat when recorded his statement in his case only stated about execution of Ex: P/1, with no mention of the second agreement Ex: P/2. During course of cross -examination he stated that
the second agreement was written when he purchased another piece of land. His statement was not in conformity with his own case. While in other case also he was silent about the subsequent transaction and execution of Ex: P/2. This further damaged his case.
22. The opinion of the Handwriting Expert was also obtained in the case filed by Haji Barat,
but it was of less help for the reasons that two agreements were sent to the Handwriting Expert for examination, dates whereof mentioned in the Report as agreement date d 6th February 1982
and agreement dated 9th May 1977. The basic agreement dated 26th August, 1976 not found mentioned therein. It was not sent to the Handwriting Expert for examination of the signature of Muhammad Yousaf. Though the report was in positive terms to the extent of signature of Muhammad Yousaf on referred to agreements, but unable to serve the purpose. In other case there was no opinion of Handwriting Expert. In view of the stated facts the initial transaction was not referred, thus the opinion was of no avail, nor any benefit arising thereof could be extended
in favour of Haji Barat. Thus the courts, trial and appellate, erred.
23. As far second agreement dated 9th May 1977 was concerned, available on the record as
Ex: P/2, was with the content s that the parties agreed that if the purchaser Haji Barat intended to
sell the subject property, Muhammad Yousaf would be the first person to have a right to
purchase the same. The attesting witnesses of this agreement were Abdul Jabbar and Agha Muhammad. It was observed that Agha Muhammad not only signed this agreement Ex: P/2, but
also the agreement Ex: P/1 as attesting witness, but he never appeared before the court. Neither
there was any effort on part of Haji Barat either to procure his attendance thr ough process of the
court, or to bring this fact on the record that he was not alive or not available, thus an adverse
presumption could be drawn due to non production of this witness.
24. Haji Barat also pressed that the agreement dated 9th May 1977 was i n fact an
acknowledgement of the sale transaction previously held, with attestation of Muhammad Hussain
Khan brother of Muhammad Yousaf. This attestation available on back side of the agreement Ex: P/2. The perusal whereof reveals that the note of confirma tion was signed by Muhammad
Hussain with the date 1st August 1976. Though the contents were not fully readable, but while going through both these documents the fact evident that the initial sale transaction was alleged to be held on 26th August, 1976, and the second agreement was of 9th May 1977, but this note
was even prior to execution of the first agreement, as the date mentioned under signature of Muhammad Hussain clearly read as 1st August 1976. This placed a mark on genuineness of both
these document s. In addition this Muhammad Hussain appeared as DW -1 in the case filed by
Muhammad Yousaf. Though he admitted his signature on Ex: D/I (Ex: P/2) marked as Mark:
D/1, but it was his statement that he sold out a shop to Haji Barat, further showed his ignora nce
about the dispute between Haji Barat and Muhammad Yousaf. During course of cross -
examination he stated that the shops existing at the site were constructed in the courtyard of the house owned by Muhammad Yousaf. He further stated that he had no concern with the shops in
existence at the site. This witness also not supported the sale transaction between Haji Barat and
Muhammad Yousaf. It was further observed that on Ex: P/1 the signatures of Muhammad Yousaf were in Urdu, but on the subsequent agreement E x: P/2 it was in English, thus it was not
possible for this court to compare both the signatures available on the referred to documents.
25. The courts, trial and appellate, though discussed the evidence, but the findings were on
mere presumptions. The bas ic document Ex: P/I was not proved as required, but a presumption
was drawn by the trial court on the basis of execution of the agreement Ex: P/2, that too,
overlooked the discrepancies as noted hereinabove. The appellate court also repeated the error. Both the courts unable to focus on the law, thus failed to appreciate the requirements necessary
to prove a document, and relied on the documents only tendered in evidence, which otherwise were not admissible, nor any relief on basis thereof could be allowed.
26. The law required that an instrument if pertained to some financial obligation and
rendered in writing, have to be attested by two witnesses. Further mandated use of such document in evidence, unless at -least two attesting witnesses appeared before the court and be
examined, and if the witnesses are not available the document is to be proved by other evidence. In the case in hand the witness Agha Muhammad never appeared before the court, while the other witness Shah Jehan though made his appearance, but unable to describe the necessary
details of the transaction, nor even asserted execution of the document, and it has been signed by the parties in his presence. He simply identified his own signature. The original document was also not produced, and his s tatement was never completed, thus was out of consideration. As far
PW-3 Muhammad Jaffar was concerned, though attested both the agreements, but he was also
not with the statement that at the time of execution of both these documents either he was in
atten dance, or the parties signed the papers in his presence. Thus his evidence was of no legal
effect. As far the Report of Handwriting Expert was concerned, though it described genuineness of signature of Muhammad Yousaf on Ex: P/2 and agreement dated 6th February 1982, but in
absence of the agreement dated 26th August 1976 Ex: P/I, the subsequent documents were of no
use, nor could be relied upon, as their existence based on existence of the first agreement, which
was not proved. The other discrepancies, as noted hereinabove, further destroyed the genuineness of Ex: P/2. In addition both the agreements were not properly confronted to Muhammad Yousaf while he was in the witness box in both the suits in his capacity as of plaintiff and defendant. The agreements were not proved as required.
27. Haji Barat was before the court being beneficiary of the transaction, thus burdened to
establish a legal transaction, consequent a thereto valid title passed on him, but not succeeded, thus unable to shift the onus to the o ther party. There might not be any evidence that he was
allowed to retain the premises as licensee, in view of the described facts the absence of the evidence of the nature would have no material effect on fate of the case.
28. It is further observed that the trial court conducted the trial of both the cases side by side,
but with no order to properly consolidate the suits, rather separate proceedings were held, and without observing the proper procedure evidence of one case was relied in other case, which was an error.
29. In view of the above discussion, the evidence was not up- to the mark and failed to meet
the required criteria, but relied by the courts, trial and appellate, in complete negation of the law.
Though there are concurrent findings of the courts, trial and appellate, on facts, but in view of the noted illegalities a case is made out for exercise of revisional power by this Court. Thus the civil revision petition Nos. 298 of 2007 and 299 of 2007 are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and dec ree dated 24th June 2005 of Senipr Civil Judge -I, Quetta, and judgment and decree dated
23rd May 2007 of Additional District Judge -III, Quetta are hereby set aside, resultantly the suit
bearing No. 175 of 2000 filed by the plaintiff Muhammad Yousaf is decr eed in the terms that the
plaintiff Muhammad Yousaf son of Ahmed Jan is declared to be owner of the property bearing Khata No.4/4, Khasra Nos. 1775/1650/1233, situated in Mohal Khushkaba Kuchlak Tappa Kuchlak, Tehsil and District Quetta, measuring 1 rod 6 poles, while the defendant Haji Barat son of Shadi Khan is illegal occupant, thus not authorized to remain in possession of the subject property. Further, defendant Haji Barat is directed to hand over vacant possession of the subject property to the plaint iff Muhammad Yousaf. Further, restrained from making any interference in
possession and title of plaintiff Muhammad Yousaf. There shall be no orders as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn.
30. While the suit bearing No. 55 of 2002 filed by Haji Barat is dismis sed for want of merit,
with no orders as to cost. Decree sheet be drawn.
ZC/164/Bal. Order accordingly.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.