IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Suit No. 1682 of 2009

[Mazhar Sayeed Vs. Atif Mazhar and others]

Dates of hearing : 14.01.2019 and 23.01.2019.

Date of Decision : 23.01.2019.

Plaintiff : Mazhar Sayeed, through Mr. Maqbool Ahmed,

Advocate.

Defendant No.1 : Atif Mazhar, through Mr. Shahzad Afzal,

Advocate.

Nemo for Defendants No.2 and 3.

Case law relied upon by Plaintiff’s counsel.

1. 1972 SCMR page-50.

(Ashiq Hussain and another v. Ashiq Ali)-Ashiq Hussain case.

2. 2008 CLC page-131 [High Court (AJ&K)].

(Muhammad Sharif Khan v. Muhammad Aziz Khan and another). Sharif Khan case.

Case law relied upon by Defendant’s counsel.

1. PLD 2004 Supreme Court page-682

(Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar and 2 others).

2. 1991 SCMR page-2300

(Mst. Nur Jehan Begum through Legal Representatives v. Syed Mujtaba Ali Naqvi).

3. PLD 2004 Peshawar page-104

(Sakhi Zaman v. Mst. Shazia and 3 others).

Other Precedent:

1. 2014 SCMR page-1181

(Rab Nawaz and others v. Ghulam Rasul).

Rab Nawaz case.

2. 2010 SCMR page-1370

(Khaliqdad Khan and others v. Mst. Zeenat Khatoon and others) Khan case.

3. 2008 SCMR page-1318

(Abdul Sattar and others v. Muhammad Ashraf and others).

Ashraf case.

Law under discussion: (1). Specific Relief Act, 1877.

(2). Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

(3). Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

[Evidence Law).

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, J. The Plaintiff has filed the present lis for Cancellation of a ‘Gift Deed’ in respect of a Commercial Shop No.3, located at ground floor, measuring 1097 Square Feet along with 1974 Square Feet area on Mezzanine Floor, total covered area 3701 Square Feet, in the building known as ‘Maryam Complex’, built at Plot No.59, Bihar Muslim Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Block-3 of KECHS Union Limited, Karachi. The said Shop / Unit No.3 since is a subject matter of the controversy, thus will be referred to as the ‘Suit Property’.

2. The Plaint contains the following prayer clause_

“The Plaintiff, therefore, respectfully prays for Judgment and Decree against the Defendants jointly and severally as under: -

a) To cancel the Oral Gift vide Registered No.387, Book No.1, dated 03.03.2009, M.F. Roll No.4810, dated 03.04.2009 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of Defendants No.1 and 2 in terms of Undertaking/NOC dated 03.03.2009 executed by Defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of Plaintiff.

b) Judgment and Decree declaring that the Plaintiff is entitled under registered General Power of Attorney vide registration No.229, Book No.IV, dated 10.11.2009, of the suit property to revoke the Oral Gift vide Registered No.387, Book No.1, dated 03.03.2009.

c) Judgment and Decree that the Plaintiff is sole owner / landlord of constructed commercial shop Unit No.3 on ground floor, measuring 1097 square feet along with of 1974 Square Feet on Mezzanine Floor having net covered area 3071 Square Feet, in the building known as Maryam Complex, situated at Plot No.59, Bihar Muslim Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Block-3 of KECHS Union Ltd., Karachi, through a Indenture of sub-lease registered at No.1030, Book No.1, Addl., dated 20.04.2000, duly registered by the Sub-Registrar “T” Division XI, Karachi, having M.F. Roll No.2783, Photo Registrar, Karachi, dated 01.12.2000.

d) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents, attorneys, representatives, and / or anybody asserting through or under him from claiming owner / landlord of the suit property and/or selling alienating mortgaging or creating any third party interest in any manner whatsoever the suit property.

e) Any other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

f) Cost of the suit.”

3. Upon issuance of summons, Written Statements were filed by private Defendants No.1 and 2, whereas, Defendant No.3 (Sub-Registrar-III) is a formal party and did not contest the present litigation. Defendants No.1 and 2 are real son and daughter, respectively, of Plaintiff in whose favour, through a registered instrument, a Gift was made in respect of the aforementioned suit property. The Defendant No.1 has filed his detailed Written statement and contested the claim of present Plaintiff, whereas, the Defendant No.2 (Maryam Ali) opted not to contest the claim by filing a formal Written Statement.

4. Vide order dated 15.12.2014, the following consent Issues were framed_

“1. Whether the registered Gift Deed (Annexure “B” to the Plaint) dated 03.03.2009 is liable to be cancelled?

2. Whether the Plaintiff has any right/interest in the suit property?

3. What should the decree be?”

5. Whereafter; the parties led the evidence. Plaintiff examined himself and on behalf of Defendant No.1, his father in law (Shaikh Arshad Munir) testified; whereas, Defendant No.2 herself deposed in the matter.

6. Mr. Maqbool Ahmed, the learned counsel for Plaintiff, has argued that the subject gift in respect of the suit property was never completed as the possession, which is one of the basic ingredients to constitute a valid gift, was never handed over to the donees-Defendants No.1 and 2. He further argued that both the donees-Defendants No.1 and 2 executed a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of Plaintiff to the effect that the Plaintiff being the father / donor will manage and deal with the affairs of the suit property during his life time, without any objection and hindrance from the Defendants. Subsequently, a General Power of Attorney was also signed by both the Defendants in favour of Plaintiff, authorizing the latter (Plaintiff) to manage and look-after the property in question with the authority and power, inter alia, to rent out the same and collect rents, apply for loan to the House Building Finance Corporation and to transfer / mutate. This No Objection Certificate (NOC) is produced in the evidence as Exhibit-P/2 and the General Power of Attorney as Exhibit-P/3, which is a registered instrument and is dated 03.03.2009.

The learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that since the Defendant No.1 started misbehaving with the Plaintiff and situation was deteriorated to an extent that a complaint (Exhibit P/5) had to be lodged before the concerned Police Station, the Plaintiff had no option but to revoke the Gift, which was otherwise never completed. Learned counsel for Plaintiff has further submitted that in clear violation of the terms of the above mentioned NOC, the Defendant No.1 addressed a Legal Notice to the Tenant-Habib Bank Limited calling upon the said tenant to pay the rentals to Defendant No.1; similarly, the said Defendant No.1 has addressed a ‘Legal Intimation’ to Defendant No.3 (concerned Sub-Registrar), dated 11.11.2009, with a request that no transfer / mutation of the suit property be accepted on the strength of the said General Power of Attorney (Exhibit-P/3), which is a bogus document; further submitted that Defendant No.1 was about to dispose of the suit property but failed, because of present proceeding.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Shahzad Afzal, the learned counsel for Defendant No.1, while controverting the arguments of Plaintiff’s counsel, has submitted that the subject gift is complete in every respect, which cannot be revoked subsequently, through the present proceeding. He has further stated, besides disputing the authenticity of said document (General Power of Attorney), that reliance upon the said General Power of Attorney by the Plaintiff’s side, in fact, goes against their stance, as it means that the Defendants No.1 and 2 being the donees and co-owners of the suit property, had authorized the Plaintiff (their father) to do and undertake certain acts, deeds and things as specified in the said General Power of Attorney. Learned counsel for Defendant No.1 has further argued that it is specifically pleaded in paragraph-9 of his Written Statement as well as in the Affidavit-in-evidence that the Defendant No.1 had also received the monthly rent from the tenant initially, being the co-owner of the suit property, but later the rentals were stopped.

8. Arguments heard and record perused.

ISSUES NO.1 AND 2.

9. Since Issues No.1 and 2 are closely interlinked, therefore, they can be decided together. But before a finding on the impugned Gift Deed is given, it is necessary that the controversy about the afore-mentioned General Power of Attorney {Exhibit P/3} is resolved.

10. It is argued by the learned counsel for Defendant No.1, that deposition of Defendant No.1 with regard to the said General Power of Attorney (Exhibit P/3) has gone unchallenged, which means that the said General Power of Attorney was a bogus document. He attempted to argue that since the General Power of Attorney cannot be considered, thus the averment of Plaintiff with regard to conditionality of the subject gift is also incorrect and be discarded.

Onus is on Defendant No.1 to prove that the said General Power of Attorney, which is a registered instrument is a bogus document, because law attaches presumption of genuineness to such a document.

The registered General Power of Attorney is produced by Plaintiff in his evidence as Exhibit P/3. Plaintiff has specifically stated in his cross-examination that “it is correct on 03.03.2009, signed were taken on all documents. It is incorrect that I have taken signature by defendants numbers 1 and 2, on General Power of Attorney and on NOC without telling them”.

Plaintiff has categorically pleaded the fact about execution and registration of the afore mentioned General Power of Attorney (Exhibit P/3), and in his cross-examination, he could not be disproved on this very fact. Secondly, the other donee / beneficiary of the gift in question, Defendant No.2, has in her evidence admitted the entire case of the Plaintiff, including the execution of afore mentioned NOC (Exhibit P/2) and the General Power of Attorney (Exhibit P/3). Thirdly, there is no official version available in record, supporting the case of Defendant No.1 and belying that of Plaintiff that the said General Power of Attorney was never executed; thus the testimony of Defendant No.1 cannot be accepted in view of Articles 85, 95, 102 and 103 of the Evidence Law, inter alia, relating to the presumption attached to a registered Power of Attorney and exclusion of oral evidence in the presence of a registered written instrument, that is, the said registered General Power of Attorney. It is also a matter of record that General Power of Attorney is registered by the same Sub-Registrar, that is, present Defendant No.3, who has registered the impugned gift deed. Thus, if the rule of preponderance for the appraisal of the evidence in a civil matter, is applied here, then the conclusion is that Defendant No.1 has failed to discharge his onus to prove that the said General Power of Attorney (Exhibit P/3) is a bogus document. Thus contention of learned counsel for Defendant No.1 is neither plausible nor acceptable.

11. The instrument of Gift (Hiba) in question has been produced in the evidence. It is an undisputed document, registered by the Defendant No.3 (Sub Registrar-III), Gulshan-e- Iqbal Town, Karachi and is of 03.03.2009. It appears that due to some bona fide error, this document does not bear an exhibit number, however, this does not entail any adverse consequence. This subject Gift Deed is at page-19 of the evidence file. The aforementioned No Objection Certificate (NOC) has been produced by the Plaintiff’s witness as Exhibit P/2. A legal Notice of 29.10.2009 addressed on behalf of Defendants No.1 and 2 to the Chief Manager of Habib Bank Limited, Bahadurabad Branch, Karachi, is produced by the Plaintiff as Exhibit P/4. This is the document wherefrom apparently the dispute arose between the parties hereto, when the Defendants, particularly, Defendant No.1, attempted to assert his right of ownership and demanded that the tenant Bank should pay the rentals to the said Defendants. In the evidence it has come on record as an undisputed fact that till date it is the Plaintiff who is receiving the rents of the suit property from the tenant. During arguments it has not been disputed on behalf of the contesting Defendant No.1 that the said Legal Notice was basically initiated at the behest of Defendant No.1 only. The Plaintiff’s side has also produced the complaint filed before the area SHO as Exhibit P/5. The record shows that the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 got engaged in a litigation by invoking jurisdiction of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (South), under Section 22-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, primarily seeking directions from the concerned Court to lodge a FIR (First Information Report) against the Defendant No.1.

It is a specific stance of Plaintiff that the Defendant No.1 persuaded the Plaintiff for gifting the suit property in favour of Defendants No.1 and 2 and that is why in consideration whereof a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and a registered General Power of Attorney have been executed by both the Defendants so that the Plaintiff can continue to manage, control and deal with the suit property at his discretion. The Plaintiff has also pleaded so also testified that earlier the Plaintiff has gifted the half portion of his house in favour of present Defendant No.1 and remaining half in favour of his second wife. This fact is also admitted by the witness (DW-1) of Defendant No.1 in his evidence (paragraph-4 of the Affidavit-in-Evidence/Examination-in-Chief).

Plaintiff has deposed that the above mentioned instrument of gift was conditional and is to be read with afore referred No Objection Certificate (Exhibit P/2) and subsequent registered General Power of Attorney (Exhibit P/3), and both Defendants No.1 and 2 are not supposed to receive rent(s) and disposed of the suit property. On this specific assertion, which is material part of the evidence, the Plaintiff has not been cross-examined, which shows that even the constructive possession of the suit property was never handed over to the Donees / Defendants No.1 and 2, but it always remained with the Plaintiff and it is the latter (Plaintiff), who exercised till date a complete control over the suit property, as undisputedly, hitherto the Plaintiff is receiving the rentals and dealing with the tenant. In his cross-examination, the Plaintiff remained consistent with regard to the above facts. Appraisal of the evidence shows that the Plaintiff even possessed the original Gift Deed.

12. On the other hand, the Defendant No.2 (daughter of Plaintiff) in her evidence has supported the stance of Plaintiff. In her short but precise cross-examination she reiterated her examination-in-chief and no contradiction appears in her evidence; Affidavit-in-evidence / Examination-in-chief and cross-examination. In paragraph-4 of her Affidavit in Evidence, she acknowledged that the subject gift was a conditional one; and was made on the persuasion of her brother-the said Defendant No.1; in paragraph-7 she has admitted that neither actual nor constructive possession was handed over by the Plaintiff to Defendants No.1 and 2. In paragraph-9 she has given her no objection for cancellation of gift.

13. The above testimony is evaluated with that of the contesting Defendant No.1, on whose behalf his father in law (Shaikh Arshad Munir) deposed. The said witness of Defendant No.1 (DW-1) admitted in his cross- examination that in fact Defendant No.1 put his signature on NOC dated 03.03.2009, that is, the afore mentioned Exhibit P/2. He has further admitted that the possession was never handed over to Defendant No.1; however, he stated voluntarily, that since the suit property was a rented premises, therefore, the possession could not be handed over.

14. In rebuttal to the submissions of the learned Advocate for Defendant No.1, with regard to the fact that even it is clearly stated in the impugned gift deed itself that ‘actual physical possession’ was handed over to the Defendants No.1 and 2 (donees), the learned counsel for the Plaintiff has relied upon a reported case of Ashiq Hussain (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed in detail the effect of a recital of the gift mentioning that ‘possession has been delivered to the donees’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the view that mere mentioning that possession has been delivered to the donees is not enough but the Court seized of the matter has to take other factors into the account. It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant discussion as under: -

“This aspect of the case was considered by this Court in the case of Shamshad Ali Shah and others v. Syed Hassan Shah and others (1). It was held in that case that a mere recital in the gift deed that the possession has been delivered to the donees is not enough. In that connection it was observed as under :-

“Even in the case of an ordinary donor it has never been that a simple declaration as to delivery of possession in the deed of gift would effect a transfer or possession if land was in possession of tenants and in a case like the present where the donor was in the hands of the donee any recitals at her instance would obviously be of less weight.”

This Court further observed : -

“A declaration in a deed of gift as to delivery of possession has two aspects. It may be evidence of delivery of possession and it may of its own force transfer or help in transferring possession. So far as the first aspect is concerned if it be otherwise known that the donor did nothing beyond making a statement as to delivery of possession the recital is of no value. In its second aspect the making of the declaration is a circumstance to be taken into consideration for determining whether delivery has taken place. But in neither aspect is such a declaration conclusive.”

This Court further observed that “taking of possession by the donee without the permission of the donor is of no effect.”

It is needless to point out that there are three essentials of gifts under the Muhammadan Law: -

(i) A declaration of gift by the donor;

(ii) an express or implied acceptance of the gift by the donee; and

(iii) seisin or the delivery of possession of the gifted property by the donor to the donee.

The High Court has, at length, discussed the question of delivery of possession by the donor. It has rightly observed that the delivery of possession by the donor as a conscious, unequivocal and distinct act on his part is necessary to perfect the gift made by him. In this connection, certain authorities of Hedaya and Baillie have been referred to and it is unnecessary to reproduce them.”

(Underlining to add emphasis)

15. A well-known jurist on the Islamic Law, D.F. Mulla has also dealt with the subject in his Book ‘Principle of Muhammadan Law’; the latest edition of this Book has been compiled by Mr. M. Mahmood. In paragraphs-148 and 152, the learned author has given his opinion on the issue of delivery of possession of immovable gifted property, whereas, in paragraph-167, revocation of gifts is discussed. It would be advantageous to reproduce the same_

“148. Relinquishment by donor of ownership and dominion._It is essential to the validity of a gift that the donor should divest himself completely of all ownership and dominion over the subject of the gift.”

“152. Delivery of possession of immovable property._(1) Where donor is in possession.- A gift of immovable property of which the donor is in actual possession is not complete, unless the donor physically departs from the premises with all his goods and chattels, and the donee formally enters into possession.

(2) Where property is in the occupation of tenants.- A gift of immovable property which is in the occupation of tenants may be completed by a request by the donor to the tenants to attorn to the donee, or by delivery of the title deed or by mutation in the Revenue Register or the landlord’s sherista, but if the husband reserves to himself the right to receive rents during his lifetime and also undertakes to pay Municipal dues, a mere recital in the deed that delivery of possession has been given to the donee will not make the gift complete.

(3) Where donor and donee both reside in the property.- No physical departure or formal entry is necessary in the case of a gift of immovable property in which the donor and the donee are both residing at the time of the gift. In such a case the gift may be competed by some overt act by the donor indicating a clear intention on his part to transfer possession and to divest himself of all control over the subject of the gift. The principle for the determination of question of this nature was thus stated by West, J., in a Bombay case stated as under:

When a person is present on the premises proposed to be delivered to him, a declaration of the person previously possessed puts him into possession……without any physical departure or formal entry.”

(Underlining for emphasis)

“167. Revocation of gifts._(1) A gift may be revoked by the donor at any time before delivery of possession. The reason is that before delivery there is no completed gift at all.

(2) Subject to the provision of sub-section (4), a gift may be revoked even after delivery of possession except in the following cases_

(a) when the gift is made by a husband to his wife or by wife to her husband;

(b) when the donee is related to the donor within the prohibited degrees;

(c) when the donee is dead;

(d) when the thing given has passed out of the donee’s possession by sale, gift or otherwise;

(e) when the thing given is lost or destroyed;

(f) when the thing given has increased in value, whatever, be the cause of the increase;

(g) when the thing given is so changed that it cannot be identified, as when wheat is converted into flour by grinding;

(h) When the donor has received something in exchange (iwaz) for the gift [see sections 168 and 169].

(3) A gift may be revoked by the donor, but not by his heirs after his death. It is the donor’s law that will apply to a revocation and not of the donee.

(4) Once possession is delivered, nothing short of a decree of the Court is sufficient to revoke the gift. Neither a declaration of revocation by the donor nor even the institution of a suit for resuming the gift is sufficient to revoke the gift. Until a decree is passed, the donee is entitled to use and dispose of the subject of the gift.”

Sub-paragraph-2 of above paragraph-152 is relevant to answer the issues involved in the present suit. Even though, the Defendant No.1 has sent a Legal Notice (Exhibit-P/4) under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, to the tenant in the premises, viz. Habib Bank Limited (HBL), for tendering the monthly rent to Defendant No.1, being the subsequent co-owner of the gifted premises in question along with his sister-the Defendant No.2 (herein), but it has come in the evidence as an undisputed fact, that subsequently, the said Defendant No.1 has given up his right to receive the rent, which till date, has been received by the present Plaintiff.

16. On the other hand, the (unchallenged) testimony of the other beneficiary / donee (Defendant No.2), that neither actual nor constructive possession of the suit property was handed over to the Defendant No.1, besides, the said Defendant No.2/DW-2 has given her no objection if the gift is revoked and her further deposition that the Plaintiff’s father receiving rentals and the said property was gifted to her and her brother / Defendant No.1 on the request of the latter (said Defendant No.1), sufficiently proves that the gift in question was never complete. The said witness-DW-2 was never cross-examined on these material part of the case, which go directly to the root of the merits of the controversy involved in the present lis.

It is also noteworthy to mention, that the aforesaid No Objection Certificate (NOC) (Exhibit P/2) is an admitted document signed by both the Defendants No.1 and 2, whereby, the present Plaintiff is authorized to deal with and manage the suit property during his life time, without any objection, hindrance or interference from both Defendants (purported donees).

Similarly, once it is held that referred General Power of Attorney is a genuine instrument, it is not difficult to hold that the said instrument / General Power of Attorney does not adversely affect the case of Plaintiff, as argued by the learned counsel for Defendant No.1, but conversely, it belies the claim of the latter (the said Defendant No.1); because the said General Power of Attorney (Exhibit-P/3) also empowers the present Plaintiff to obtain loan from the House Building (Finance Corporation) and transfer, mutate the suit property. Obtaining loan in respect of a property and to transfer the same, are usually an authority exercisable by an owner of a property. It means that the incident of ownership to deal with the suit property has been kept intact by the Defendants (donees) in favour of their father-the present Plaintiff. Hence, Paragraph 148 of the above referred Book on Islamic Law is also applicable to the facts of present case, because the Plaintiff never divested himself of the proprietary right and interest in respect of the suit property, nor dominion over the suit property.

17. It is a settled rule and as expounded through various judicial precedents that when a gift is seriously challenged, then the onus to prove a valid gift is on the donee; in the present case both the Defendants No.1 and 2. In this regard, the three reported decisions handed down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Rab Nawaz, Khan and Ashraf Cases {supra} mentioned in the opening part of this decision, are relevant and the rule laid down therein is fully applicable to the facts of present case.

18. Upon appraisal of the evidence it is not difficult to conclude that Defendant No.1 failed to discharge the onus of a valid gift in his favour. More so, Defendant No.1 also did not cross-examine the two attesting witnesses, namely, Imran son of Essa Shaikh and Muhammad Pervez son of Muhammad Qasim, of the impugned Gift Deed, to corroborate the version of the said Defendant No.1. Non examination of these two attesting witnesses by the Defendant No.1 further weakens the case of said Defendant No.1.

19. It is a proven fact that till date the Plaintiff is in effective control of the suit property, dealing with the tenant and receiving the rentals and managing the other affairs in respect of the suit property. It is also a matter of record that the original documents in respect of the suit property including the instrument of Gift sought to be cancelled, are all in the possession of Plaintiff. This fact is even acknowledged by the Defendant No.1 in his Written Statement in paragraph-13.

20. Learned counsel for Plaintiff has further relied upon Sharif Khan case (supra), that when a gift is made under the Islamic Law by a father to his son, even then delivery of possession is necessary. The argument of the learned counsel for Plaintiff has substance.

21. On the other hand, learned counsel for Defendant has further submitted that since Plaintiff’s side has not cross-examined the Defendant No.1’s witness on the assertion that the rents were also received for initial three months by the said Defendant No.1, which means that possession of the suit property was in fact handed over to the Defendant No.1 as donee; learned counsel also citied the three decisions mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, viz. PLD 2004 Supreme Court 682, 1991 SCMR 2300 and PLD 2004 Peshawar 104, gist of which is that when a party/witness is not cross examined on a material part of his evidence then that portion of the testimony on which he is not cross examined would be accepted to be admitted by the opponent. It is a settled rule of the evidence, but, in the present case these submissions of the Defendants’ side is to be seen in the light of overall evidence that has come on record. Even if, the Defendant No.1 has received rent for initial months, then as per his own admission, the latter (Defendant No.1) stopped receiving the rent; paragraph 12 of the Affidavit-in-evidence of above named witness of Defendant No.1. I am afraid that this has not improved the case of Defendant No.1 with regard to the validity of Gift Deed. The onus to prove the factum of a valid gift has not been successfully discharged by the Defendant No.1. It is necessary to observe and hold that even if the above referred general power of attorney is not considered, still the overall evidence if analysed in the light of above cited case law and the relevant paragraphs of the afore-referred Book on the Islamic Law, leads to the conclusion that the subject gift was never complete.

22. In view of the discussion above, Issues No.1 and 2 are answered in Affirmative, that the subject Gift Deed is liable to be cancelled; because the Plaintiff never divested himself of the ownership right(s) and interest in respect of the suit property.

ISSUE NO.3

23. Consequently, the Suit stands decreed in terms of prayer Clauses (a), (c) and (d), respectively.

24. Parties to bear their respective costs.

Dated: 23.01.2019 JUDGE

M.Javaid.P.A.