Case law on cancellation of documents and intiqal.
The case revolves around a dispute over inheritance rights and property ownership. Mehwish Mughal and another petitioner, along with Mirza Ijaz Baig, filed a suit seeking declaration, cancellation of documents, and possession through partition with permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants.
They claimed to be the legal heirs of Mst. Shafqat Parveen, who was the daughter of Mirza Fazal Hussain Baig. The petitioners alleged that the defendants, through fraudulent means, obtained mutations and documents that deprived them of their rightful share of inheritance.
The trial court and the appellate court initially ruled against the petitioners, but the civil revision was filed challenging these judgments. The petitioner's case was supported by solid oral and documentary evidence, including witness testimonies and official records.
The court, after thorough consideration of the evidence presented, concluded that the petitioners had indeed proved their case. It found that the defendants failed to disprove the allegations of fraud and illegality in obtaining the mutations and documents.
As a result, the court allowed the civil revision, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and decreed the suit of the petitioners. The respondents were directed to rectify the relevant revenue records, cancel the disputed mutations and transactions, and hand over possession of the property to the petitioners within a specified timeframe.
یہ مقدمہ وراثت کے حقوق اور جائیداد کی ملکیت کے تنازع کے گرد گھومتا ہے۔ مہوش مغل اور ایک اور درخواست گزار نے مرزا اعجاز بیگ کے ساتھ مل کر ایک دعویٰ دائر کیا جس میں مدعا علیہان/مدعا علیہان کے خلاف مستقل حکم امتناعی کے ساتھ ڈیکلریشن، دستاویزات کی منسوخی اور تقسیم کے ذریعے قبضے کا مطالبہ کیا گیا۔
انہوں نے محترمہ کے قانونی وارث ہونے کا دعویٰ کیا۔ شفقت پروین جو مرزا فضل حسین بیگ کی بیٹی تھیں۔ درخواست گزاروں نے الزام لگایا کہ مدعا علیہان نے دھوکہ دہی کے ذریعے میوٹیشنز اور دستاویزات حاصل کیں جس سے انہیں وراثت میں ان کے جائز حصہ سے محروم کر دیا گیا۔
ٹرائل کورٹ اور اپیل کورٹ نے ابتدائی طور پر درخواست گزاروں کے خلاف فیصلہ دیا، لیکن ان فیصلوں کو چیلنج کرتے ہوئے سول نظرثانی دائر کی گئی۔ درخواست گزار کے مقدمے کی حمایت ٹھوس زبانی اور دستاویزی ثبوتوں سے کی گئی، بشمول گواہوں کی شہادتیں اور سرکاری ریکارڈ۔
عدالت نے پیش کردہ شواہد پر مکمل غور کرنے کے بعد یہ نتیجہ اخذ کیا کہ درخواست گزاروں نے واقعی اپنا مقدمہ ثابت کر دیا ہے۔ اس نے پایا کہ مدعا علیہان میوٹیشنز اور دستاویزات کے حصول میں دھوکہ دہی اور غیر قانونی ہونے کے الزامات کو غلط ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہے۔
نتیجے کے طور پر، عدالت نے سول نظرثانی کی اجازت دی، نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کو ایک طرف رکھ دیا، اور درخواست گزاروں کے مقدمے کا فیصلہ سنایا۔ جواب دہندگان کو ہدایت کی گئی کہ وہ متعلقہ ریونیو ریکارڈ کو درست کریں، متنازعہ تبدیلیوں اور لین دین کو منسوخ کریں، اور جائیداد کا قبضہ ایک مخصوص مدت کے اندر درخواست گزاروں کے حوالے کریں۔
reo. H C J D A 38
JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
JUDGMENT
C.R.No.16524/2023
Mehwish Mughal and another
VS.
Amira Bukhari etc.
Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J:- Through this civil revision
the petitioners have challenged the validity of the judgment &
decree dated 08.10.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge,
Lahore who dismissed the suit for declaration and cancellation of
documents, possession through partition with permanent
injunction filed by the petitioners and also assailed the judgment
& decree dated 02.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Lahore who dismissed the appeal of the
petitioners.
2.
Brief facts of the case are that Mehwish Mughal,
petitioners and one Mirza Ijaz Baig filed a suit for declaration and
cancellation of documents, possession through partition with
permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants with the
assertions that the plaintiffs are the successors of Mst. Jamila
Begum wife of Mirza Muhammad Hussain who was owner of
land measuring 13 Kanal 02 Marla situated in Moza Mota Singh
Wala, District Lahore. Mst. Jamila Begum passed away leaving
C.R.No.16524/2023
2
behind one son Fazal Hussain Baig, the maternal grandfather of
the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 and two daughters namely Bashir Begum
and Rasheeda Begum. Fazal Hussain passed away leaving behind
one son Mirza Pervaiz Ahmad Baig (father of respondents No.5
& 6) and one daughter namely, Shafaqat Parveen (mother of
present petitioners/ plaintiffs). The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of
Mst. Shafqat Parveen who married to Mirza Ijaz Ahmad Baig,
deceased (who was plaintiff No.3 in the plaint). Mst. Shafqat
Parveen died on 02.10.1977. After her death, Mirza Parvez
Ahmad Baig did not incorporate the names of the petitioners as
legal heirs of Mirza Fazal Hussain in inheritance mutation
No.649 dated 19.01.2000. They also got attested further
inheritance mutation No.786 dated 24.04.2003. On the basis of
aforesaid illegal mutations, the defendants No.5 & 6 got attested
registered sale deed dated 02.07.2003 in favour of defendant
No.4, who further sold the said property to defendant No.3
through registered sale deed. The petitioners/plaintiffs also
challenged the validity of two registered gift deed as well as the
subsequent mutations. The petitioners/ plaintiffs stated that they
are legal heirs of Mst. Shafqat Parveen who was daughter of
Mirza Fazal Hussain Baig as such they are entitled to get their
share in the estate left by Mirza Fazal Hussain Baig. The
petitioners/plaintiffs prayed for cancellation of the aforesaid
mutations.
The respondents No.2&3/defendants No.2 & 3 while
filing the contested written statement contended that Mst. Jamila
Baig died on 12.12.1982 whereas inheritance mutation No.649
was incorporated on 19.01.2000. Mst. Shafqat Parveen was not
daughter of Mirza Fazal Hussain rather her father’s name was
Mirza Afzal Hussain Baig as per her Nikah Nama as such the
petitioners/plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the
inheritance Mirza Fazal Hussain Baig. The other respondents/
C.R.No.16524/2023
3
defendants abandoned the trial proceeding so they were
proceeded against ex-parte. Out of the divergent pleadings of the
parties, the trial Court framed issues, recorded pro and contra
evidence of the parties and finally dismissed the suit vide
judgment & decree dated 08.10.2021. Being dejected, only the
petitioner No.1/Mst. Mehwish Mughal filed an appeal whereas
Mirza Imran Baig/plaintiff No.2 was living abroad as such he was
arrayed as respondent. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate
Court vide judgment & decree dated 02.12.2022. Hence, this civil
revision.
3.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have
gone through the record.
4.
The core controversy involved in this case is centered
upon Issues No.1, 2 & 5 which are reproduced as under:
“1. Whether the plaintiffs are co-owners in the impugned
property on the basis of their status as legal heirs of their
deceased predecessor but the defendants have deprived them
through forged and fictitious sale deeds in their favour which
are ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiffs and liable to be
canceled? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaratory decree
alongwith cancellation of impugned documents and
consequential relief of possession of the property as prayed
for? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiffs are not legal heirs of late Fazal
Hussain because Mst. Shafqat Parveen was not the daughter of
Late Mirza Afzal Hussain. Therefore, they are stopped by their
act and conduct to file the instant suit and the suit is liable to
be dismissed? OPD”
Mst. Mehwish Mughal (P.W.1) has deposed that her great
maternal grandmother’s name is Mst. Jamila Begum who had one
son Mirza Fazal Hussain Baig and two daughters namely Bashir
Begum & Rasheeda Begum; that her maternal grandfather’s
name was Fazal Hussain Baig who had two children, one
daughter Shafqat Parveen (who is mother of plaintiff) and one
son Pervaiz Ahmad; that she and Mirza Imran Baig are issues of
C.R.No.16524/2023
4
Mst. Shafqat Parveen; that her father’s name is Mirza Ejaz Baig
who died on 22.07.2015; that Mst. Jamila Begum was owner of
land measuring 13 Kanal 02 Marla in Moza Mota Singh Wala
Tehsil Cantt. District Lahore; that after death of Mst. Jamila
Begum, the property was to be partitioned among the legal heirs;
that legal heirs of Rasheeda Begum and her maternal uncle,
Mirza Pervez Ahmad Baig with inter-se collusiveness got
incorporated mutation No.649 dated 19.01.2000 and deprived
other legal heirs; that Mirza Parvez Ahmed died in 2003 and he
had four children, two sons Kashif Mughal & Ali Mughal and
two daughters Saima Mughal and Sana Mughal who were living
in village and inheritance of Mirza Parvez was incorporated in
their name without knowledge of the plaintiffs. She produced in
evidence copy of mutation (Exh.P.2), Nikah Nama dated
27.06.1975 (Exh.P.3); that the legal heirs of Bashir Begum filed
an appeal on 29.04.2003 against mutation No.649 dated
19.01.2000 and mutation was cancelled on 14.01.2004; that
against said order, Sharifan Bibi filed an appeal before Executive
District Officer (Revenue) Lahore which was dismissed on
17.03.2012; that from legal heirs of Pervez Ahmad only Saima
Mughal and Sana Mughal are alive whereas his sons have passed
away. Abid Akram Khan (P.W.2) deposed that:
"وہمش یک وادلہ اک انم تقفش رپونی ہکبج وادل اک انم رمزا ااجعز گیب )رموحم( ےہ۔ ںیم دمہیع
وہمش ےک وادلنی ےک اکنح ےک ومعق رپ وموجد اھت اور ریمے العوہ ریمے وادل دمحم اخن )رموحم(
ریمے اتای لگ دمحم اخن اور ریمے وادل ےک زکن ودیح ارکم اخن اور ریمے رسس رمزا رقیف ادمح
گیب دمایعن ےک وادلنی ےک اکنح ےک ومعق رپ وموجد ےھت۔ہی امتم ولگ دمایعن ےک وادلنی ےک
اکنح ںیم وگاہ ےھت۔ ںیم ان ےک دطختس اچہپن اتکس وہں۔۔۔ دمایعن لک دو نہب اھبیئ ںیہ۔ اھبیئ اک
انم رمزا رمعان گیب اور نہب اک انم وہمش لغم ےہ۔ وہمش ےک امومں اک انم رمزا رپوزی ادمح گیب اور
ان ےک وادل اک انم رمزا لضف نیسح گیب ےہ۔ لضف نیسح گیب ےک 2ےچب ےھت ،ےٹیب اک انم رمزا رپوزی
ادمح گیب ہکبج یٹیب اک انم تقفش رپونی ےہ لضف نیسح گیب یک وادلہ اک انم ہلیم مگی ےہ۔ ہلیم مگی
ےک لک 3ےچب ےھت نج ںیم ےٹیب اک انم لضف نیسح گیب ہکبج ویٹیبں اک انم ریشب مگی اور ردیشہ مگی
ںیہ۔دمایعن ےک امومں رمزا رپوزی ادمح گیب ےن وخد وک لضف نیسح گیب اک اولکات وارث اتبےت
وہےئ اےنپ انم رپ اجدیئاد دتموعہی اک ورایتث ااقتنل رکوا ایل اھت ہکبج دمایعن یک وادلہ امسمۃ تقفش
C.R.No.16524/2023
5
۔۔ ریشب مگی ریمے رسس رموحم رمزا رقیف رپونی وک ان ےک وادل یک وراتث ےس رحموم رک دای اھت۔
ادمح گیب یک وادلہ ںیھت۔ ریشب مگی وج ہک ہلیم مگی یک یٹیب یھت ان ےک واراثن وک یھب اجدیئاد دتموعہی
س ءان رپ رمزا رقیف ادمح گیب ےک واراثن نج ںیم ریم زو ہ یھب مال ںیم ےس ہصح ہن دای ایگ اھت
ےہاکیدوع ٰدویاینوسلوکرٹالوہرںیمدارئایکاھتوجہکہغیصبرایضانہمواسپےلایلایگ۔
12 دصمہقاکیپدوع ٰونعبانرمزا امظعگیبوریغہءانمرکلنراٹیرئڈدمحماطرقادمحربلمتشم
شیپ رکات وہں۔۔۔ دمایعن رمزا لضف نیسح گیب ےک واراثن ںیہ۔ نج Exh.P.15 ر رپت وطب
" وک اجدیئاد دتموعہی ںیم ےس ااکن ورایتث ہصح انلم رقنی ااصنف ےہ۔
Despite lengthy cross examination the stance taken by the P.Ws
could not specifically be shattered by the other side.
5.
Conversely, Shabbir Ahmad (respondent/defendant)
himself appeared as his sole witness as D.W.1 and controverted
the assertions made by the P.Ws.
6.
During pendency of the appeal of the appellant,
respondents No.4 & 5, Mst. Saima Mughal and Mst. Sana
Mughal, real daughters of Mirza Pervez Ahmad and
granddaughters of Mirza Fazal Hussain Baig appeared in person
alongwith their counsel before the appellate Court [on 10.02.2022
and 29.01.2022 respectively] and got recorded their statements on
oath in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs. For ready reference,
statements of the respondents No.4 & 5 are reproduced as under:
“Statement of respondent No.6 Sana Mughal d/o Mirza
Pervaiz Ahmad Baig r/o House No.477, Block-B-II,
Township, Lahore.
On oath stated that predecessor in interest namely Jameela
Begum is my great paternal grandmother and great maternal
grandmother of appellant Mehwish Mughal and performa
respondent No.10 Mirza Imran Baig, that appellant filed suit/
instant appeal for getting her legal share in the property of
Jameela Begum. Jameela Begum has one son namely Mirza
Fazal Hussain Baig and two daughters Rasheeda Begum and
Bashir Begum. Mirza Fazal Hussain Baig is my paternal
grandfather and maternal grandfather of appellant and
performa respondent No.10. Mirza Fazal Hussain Baig has one
son namely Mirza Pervaiz Ahmad Baig my father and one
daughter namely Shafqat Perveen my Aunt (Phupho) who is
mother of appellant and performa respondent No.10 are my
real cousins therefore Jameela Begum. I have no objection on
C.R.No.16524/2023
6
acceptance of instant appeal and to set aside the judgment and
decree dated 08.10.2021.
R.O. & A.C.
Muzzammil Musa,
29.01.2022
Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore
Statement of respondent No.5 Saima Sohail d/o Mirza Pervaiz
Ahmad Baig w/o Sohail Siddique r/o House No.1, Street
No.11, Mohalla Panj Peer Mehboob Park Mughalpura, Kahna
Nau Tehsil Lahore Cantt. CNIC No.35202-4116770-4.
On oath stated that predecessor in interest namely Jameela
Begum is my great paternal grandmother and great maternal
grandmother of appellant Mehwish Mughal and performa
respondent No.10 Mirza Imran Baig, that appellant filed suit/
instant appeal for getting her legal share in the property of
Jameela Begum. Jameela Begum had one son namely Mirza
Fazal Hussain Baig and two daughters Rasheeda Begum and
Bashir Begum. Mirza Fazal Hussain Baig is my paternal
grandfather and maternal grandfather of appellant and
performa respondent No.10 Mirza Fazal Hussain Baig has one
son namely Mirza Pervaiz Ahmad Baig my father and one
daughter namely Shafqat Perveen my Aunt (Phupho) who is
mother of appellant and performa respondent No.10. My aunt
Shafqat Perveen has died, appellant and performa respondent
No.10 are my real cousins therefore they are entitled to get
their sharia/ legal share in the property of Mst. Jameela Begu. I
have no objection on acceptance of instant appeal and to set
aside the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2021.
R.O. & A.C.
Muzzammil Musa,
10.02.2022
Addl. District Judge, Lahore”
(emphasis supplied)
The respondents/defendants never filed any application before the
appellate Court to re-examine as well as cross examine the
respondents No.4 & 5.
The legal heirs of Bashir Begum including the
petitioners/plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Collector, Lahore
Cantt. for the cancellation of Mutation No.649 which was
accepted vide order dated 14.01.2004 (Exh.D.16), the said
mutation was set aside and direction was passed to the concerned
Revenue Officer to decide the matter of inheritance of Mst.
Jamila Begum afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to all
C.R.No.16524/2023
7
the parties concerned. The said order was assailed by
respondents/Mst. Sharifan Bibi etc. through an appeal before the
Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore
which was dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2012.
Further legal heirs of Bashir Begum etc. also filed a suit
for declaration and challenged the validity of impugned
inheritance mutation No.649 as well as the subsequent
transactions. The copy of said suit as well as its proceedings was
placed on record by the P.W.2 as Exh.P.15. It is interesting to
note that at the time of exhibiting the said documents, the trial
Court observed that this document is consisted of 12 pages but
alongwith the record only five pages are available. Thus, while
taking judicial notice and for resolving the real controversy
between the parties, the record of said suit was requisitioned
which has become available. In the said suit (Exh.P.15), present
petitioners were arrayed as defendants No.11 to 13. The plaintiffs
in the said suit stated with regard to the relationship of the parties
in paragraph No.2 & 3 of plaint which are reproduced as under:
“2.
That the said Super predecessor (Grand Mother and
Super Grand Mother of the plaintiffs) namely Jamila Begum
died a long ago leaving behind one son Namely Fazal Hussain
and two daughters namely Bashir Begum & Rashida Begum
(All have died).
3. That the said Fazal Hussain died leaving behind one son
namely Mirza Pervaiz Ahmed Baig and a daughter Shafqat
Begum (both died). The said Mirza Pervaiz Ahmed Baig died
leaving behind defendants No.8 to 10 as his surviving spouses.
Whereas the said Shafqat Begum D/o Fazal Hussain was died
leaving behind defendants No.11 to 13 as her living spouses/
legal heirs.”
The present petitioners [who were defendants No.11 to 13] while
filing written statement contended that they are legal heirs of Mst.
Shafqat Parveen. Further, the defendants No.8 to 10 [children of
Mirza Parvez Ahmad Baig who are respondents No.4 & 5 in this
civil revision] while filing the written statement in the said suit
C.R.No.16524/2023
8
also admitted the aforementioned facts as correct. The respondent
No.2/Mst. Sharifan Bibi [who was defendant No.4 in the said
suit] while filing her written statement also admitted the contents
of para No.3 of the plaint as correct. Mst. Sharifan Bibi filed an
application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. in the said suit
wherein the pedigree table of Mst. Jamila Begum was prepared
which also shows Mst. Shafqat Begum as daughter of Fazal
Hussain. For reference, relevant portion of said pedigree table is
reproduced as under:
Jamila Begum wife of Mirza Muhammad Hussain
Daughter
Bashir Begum (died)
Son
Fazal Hussain (died)
Daughter
Rashida Begum
(died)
Daughters Sons
Shafqat Begum
(daughter) (died)
Mirza
Pervaiz
Ahmad
(son)
(died)
Atta
Shafiq
Muhammad
Ahmad
Mirza
Ijaz
Mirza
Imran
Mahwish
Baig
Ali Murad Sana Mughal Saima Mughal
Kashif Mughal (died)
Musarat
Begum
(died)
Shamim
Begum
(died
issueless)
M.
Anwar
(died)
Mirza
Rafiq
(died)
Zafar
Ahmad
Iqbal
Ahmad
M. Akhtar
Moreover, the defendants No.14, 15 & 17 to 23 in the said suit
filed an application for transposing them as plaintiffs as they
were also aggrieved of the inheritance mutation No.649. The said
suit was withdrawn on 23.06.2009 on the basis of a compromise
between the parties. Bashir Ahmad (D.W.1) while recording his
statement in instant suit also admitted that a compromise was
made in the aforesaid suit. He also admitted that the appeal titled
Sharifan Bibi Vs. Iqbal Ahmad Khan etc. was dismissed by the
Additional Commissioner Lahore on 17.03.2012. It is settled law
C.R.No.16524/2023
9
that presumption of correctness/sanctity/truth is attached to the
judicial proceedings/judicial record.1
6.
As the petitioners/plaintiffs challenged the inheritance
mutation while in the plaint asserting the existence of fraud and
subsequently proved the same through cogent evidence, thus onus
was shifted upon the respondents/defendants to prove the validity
of the said mutation through affirmative and corroborative
evidence but they failed to dislodge the onus.2
7.
The petitioners/plaintiffs through cogent, trustworthy &
concrete oral as well as documentary evidence proved that Mst.
Shafqat Parveen is daughter of Mirza Fazal Hussain Baig as such
she was/is also entitled to inherit from the estate left by Mirza
Fazal Hussain but Mirza Parvez Ahmad Baig, real brother of Mst.
Shafqat Parveen in order to deprive her from the legacy, did not
mention her name while incorporating the impugned inheritance
mutation.
8.
So far as the Nikah Nama (Exh.P.3) of Mst. Shafqat
Parveen on which basis the Courts below have non-suited the
petitioners is concerned, it appears that tempering was made with
the name of Fazal Hussain Baig and it has been shown as Afzal
Hussain Baig. Further, D.W.1 in his cross examination admitted
that address of Shafqat Parveen in Nikah Nama is written as 111-
Samanabad Lahore and that property was owned by Mst. Jamila
Begum, predecessor-in-interest of the parties of the lis. This fact
also shows that Mst. Shafqat Parveen was daughter of Mirza
Fazal Hussain.
9.
Admittedly, the moment Mirza Fazal Hussain Baig closed
his eyes, all his legal heirs according to the principles of Quran &
1 Muhammad Ramzan Vs. Lahore Development Authority, Lahore (2002 SCMR 1336) and
Waqar Jalal Ansari Vs. National Bank of Pakistan & Another (2008 SCMR 1611)
2 Muhammad Akram & Another Vs. Altaf Ahmad (PLD 2003 SC 688) and Amjad Ikram Vs.
Mst.Asiya Kausar and 2 others (2015 SCMR 1)
C.R.No.16524/2023
10
Sharia became absolute owner to the extent of their respective
shares in estate of the deceased and without resorting to the legal
course of independent transaction, the said ownership cannot be
taken away by means of any unauthorized entry in the revenue
record and if any entry is made in clandestine manner with
collusiveness of the revenue staff, such entry is devoid of any
legality and creating any valid right. The main object of
registration and sanctioning of mutation of inheritance is mere
formality to update the official record whereas all legal heirs of a
deceased become absolute owners of the property to the extent of
their respective share until and unless they themselves voluntarily
and legally further alienate their said share/right and the said legal
heirs by operation of law become joint owners in the estate
having constructive possession over their share and no limitation
runs against the inheritance matters as well as against any
patently void order/entry.3
10.
From the above, it can conveniently be observed that the
petitioners/plaintiffs successfully proved their case through solid,
concrete & trustworthy oral as well as documentary evidence but
the two courts below who by committing mis-reading and nonreading of the evidence decided issues No.1, 2 & 5 against the
petitioners/plaintiffs and the said findings of the Courts below on
these issues are not sustainable in the eyes of law which are hereby
reversed and these issues are decided in favour of the petitioners/
plaintiffs and against the respondents/defendants.
11.
As the decisions of the lower fora suffer from blatant misreading and non-reading of the evidence as well as misapplication of law, as such the same are not sustainable in the
eyes of law and are liable to be set-aside and this Court is well
3
Ghulam Ali and 2 others Vs. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1) and Ghulam
Qasim and others Vs. Mst. Razia Begum and others (PLD 2021 SC 812)
C.R.No.16524/2023
11
within jurisdiction under section 115 CPC to interfere with illegal
and perverse concurrent findings of the lower fora.4
12.
In view of above, this civil revision is allowed, the
judgment & decree dated 08.10.2021 passed by the trial Court as
well as judgment & decree dated 02.12.2022 passed by the
appellate Court are hereby set aside and the suit for declaration
filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is hereby decreed as prayed for
with costs throughout.
(Ch. Muhammad Iqbal)
Judge
Approved for reporting.
Judge
Comments
Post a Comment