Syed Noor Ul Hassan

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MULTAN.

Syed Noor-ul-Hassan Gillani, S/o Syed Wazir Shah Gillani, caste Syed Gillani, R/o Darbar Peer Gillani, Mouza Sultanpur Hmmar, Tehsil & District Multan. ……..PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1.

The Province of Punjab, through District Collector, Multan.

2.

Deputy

Settlement

Commission

“Authorized

Officer”/

Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) Multan. 3.

Muhammad Shafi S/o Malik Sher Muhammad, caste Dharala, R/o Chak Haleemwala, Mouza Sultanpur Hammar, Tehsil & District Multan.

4.

Zakir Khan S/o Atta Muhammad Khan, caste Pathan, R/o Mohallah Shanasaz, outside Bohar Gate, Multan.

5.

Muhammad Yahya Khan Son

Ali Muhammad

6.

Farida Malik

S/o Mehmay Khan

7.

Farzana Malik

8.

Mst. Hamida Malik

Daughters Widow

all Rajput by caste R/o Mouza Sultanpur Hammar,

Tehsil

&

District Multan. ….…..DEFENDANTS SUIT FOR DECLARATION THAT PROPERTY IN DISPUTE AS DESCRIBED BELOW IS A VALIDLY/LEGALLY ESTABLISHED KHANQAH AND IS IN LAWFUL POSSESSION OF THE PLAINTIFF AS OWNER IN POSSESSION OF THE SAME. DEFENDANTS NO. 3 AND 5-8 HAVE NO RIGHT OR TITLE TO THE SAID PROPERTY AND ALL CHANGES IN LONG STANDING ENTRIES IN THE REVENUE RECORD ARE AGAINST LAW, WITHOUT

NOTICE AND LAWFUL AUTHORITY, ABINITIO VOID, EX-PARTE, AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFF. SALE EXECUTED BY DEFENDANT NO. 4 ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS NO. 5-7 IN FAVOUR OF DEFENDANT NO. 3 IS ILLEGAL, THEREFORE, SALE DEED AS WELL AS ENTRIES IN THE REVENUE RECORD ARE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. AND A DECREE FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION DIRECTING THE DEFENDANT NO. 1 TO CORRECT THE REVENUE RECORD AS PER JAMABANDI FOR THE YEAR 1942-43. A DECREE FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS A CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTERFERING INTO THE PROPRIETARY RIGHTS & POSSESSION OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY OF THE PLAINTIFF. Description of property: According to Jamabandi for the year 1942-43 Khewat No. 15, Khatooni No. 78, Khasra No. 23/6, land measuring 4 Kanals situated in Mouza Sultanpur Hammar, Tehsil & District Multan. Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That brief facts leading to the above titled suit are that the above mentioned described property is in peaceful possession of the ancestors of the plaintiff for more than 60 years, much prior to the partition of the Indo-Pakistan Sub-Continent and no dispute ever arose regarding possession of disputed property, as such, plaintiff continue to be in possession of the same todate.

2.

That in the disputed land, grand father of the plaintiff Syed Peer Mitthey Shah is buried, who was the saintly person and renowned pious person, equally respected and honoured both by Muslims and Non-Muslims. At his death, in the year 1938, he was buried in the disputed land and a Khanqah was erected to honour the great Peer and adjacent land described as above

was gifted over to the family of the deceased Peer Gillani, as he resided there for about a half century. Descendants of the great Peer Gillani as he was called, continued to be in possession of the disputed land. 3.

That after the death of Peer Mitthey Shah alias Peer Gillani his son Peer Wazir Shah who was also a pious man, installed as Gaddi Nasheen and he continued the mission of his father and provided spiritual guidance to the people of the area, under his supervision Urs of Peer Gillani was celebrated in which people from as far as Sind and Balochistan participate, celebrities of Silsila-e-Qadria also participate and a Mahfil of Waaz and Naat is held on each 27th of Ramzan and Quran Khawani is also held.

4.

That Peer Wazeer Shah died in the year 1970 and he was also buried in the disputed property and plaintiff was installed as Sajjada Nasheen of the Khanqah and continues the work of his ancestors and all the Rasoomat are performed under his supervision/control and he continues to enjoy the possession of the disputed land as gifted to the family of Peer Gillani.

5.

That on 24.2.2001, defendant No. 4 being General Power of Attorney holder of defendant No. 5-7 executed a Sale Deed registered with Sub-Registrar (Rural) Multan, whereby the Attorney sold disputed land measuring 2 Kanals in favour of defendant No. 3. When the said Sale Deed came into the knowledge of the plaintiff, the Revenue Record was immediately verified from the Revenue Authorities and it appeared to the plaintiff that the disputed land as per Jamabandi for the year 1963-64 was shown as owner in the name of Siddique S/o Sher Muhammad, caste Rajput, R/o Sultan Pur Hammar. In the said Jamabandi area of the disputed land was also minimized to 9 Marlas. No Mutation was executed for transfer of the disputed property in favour of the above named person, in fact the said person was only a

Benami and amendment in the Revenue Record was executed by the Patwari Halqa without any lawful authority. 6.

That as per Jamabandi for the year 1967-68, the disputed property was transferred in favour of the Central Govt. and again no Mutation for such transfer was executed.

7.

That in the year 1991, property of Khasra No. 23/6/1 to 2, total measuring 9 Kanals, 4 Marlas (including 4 Kanals disputed property) was transferred by the defendant No. 2 on behalf Central Govt. in favour of Ali Muhammad S/o Mehmay Khan, caste Rajput, R/o Mouza Sultanpur Hammar. A Mutation to this effect was executed but no any notice of such transfer was affected from the plaintiff. On the death of Ali Muhammad, the said property was transferred in favour of defendants. No. 5-8 as inherited property and Mutation of inheritance was executed on 29.1.1992.

8.

That as per Jamabandi for the year 1995-96, defendant No. 58 were shown as owner of the disputed property, whereas Sibt Hassan S/o Wazir Shah, caste Syed Gillani was shown as illegal occupant of land measuring 1 Kanal, 4 Marlas.

9.

That the Sale Deed executed on 24.2.2001 was executed by General Power of Attorney holder (defendant No. 4) and the said Sale Deed is illegal as the said sale is based on the power of attorney executed on 22.10.1991 and on the said date, disputed property was not transferred in favour of defendants No. 5-7, therefore, the said defendants were not competent to execute the power of attorney for the disputed property.

10.

That plaintiff made enquiries, checked Revenue Record and found change in the long standing Revenue Record without any notice to the plaintiff, as such all the amendments in the Revenue Record are ab-initio void, illegal and without lawful authority.

11.

That disputed land as mentioned earlier much before partition and migration of the Hindu owners was gifted for Khanqah,

use of Urs/Rasoomat and residence of the Peer family which continued to be in continuance possession of the descendants of Peer Mitthey Shah and the plaintiff is in possession of the same todate as their heir. 12.

That defendants have no right, title to the property in dispute and subsequent change in Revenue Record as well as sale executed in favour of defendant No. 3 is malafide, against law, without any notice to plaintiff, illegal and without lawful authority and not sustainable in the eyes of law as such is Sale Deed dated 24.2.2001 is liable to be set aside and all entries made in the Revenue Record from the year 1963-64 todate are also liable to be set aside and to be corrected.

13.

That defendants were asked not to claim the disputed property as their own as they have no right or title over the same and get the record corrected but they refused, hence, this suit.

14.

That plaintiff has cause of action since the execution of the Sale Deed dated 24.2.2001 and the change in record of right. The whole acts of defendants came into the knowledge of the plaintiff on execution of the Sale Deed and lastly after flat refusal of the defendants a week ago, hence the suit is well in time.

15.

That civil courts in Multan have the jurisdiction to try the suit as parities reside and disputed land is located in Tehsil Multan.

16.

That value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is fixed at Rs. 2000/- which is exempted from payment of court fee. In the light of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that suit of the plaintiff may very kindly be accepted and a decree in favour of plaintiff and against defendants may graciously be issued by declaring that property in dispute as described below is a validly/legally established Khanqah and is in lawful

possession of the plaintiff as owner in possession of the same. Defendants No. 3 and 5-8 have no right or title to the said property and all changes in long standing entries in the Revenue Record are against law, without notice and lawful authority, ab-initio void, ex-parte, against the rights of the plaintiff. Sale executed by defendant No. 4 on behalf of defendants No. 5-7 in favour of defendant No. 3 is illegal, therefore, sale deed as well as entries in the revenue record are liable to be set aside. And a decree for Mandatory Injunction directing the defendant No. 1 to correct the Revenue Record as per Jamabandi for the year 1942-43. A decree for Permanent Injunction as a consequential relief restraining the defendants from interfering into the proprietary rights & possession of the disputed property of the plaintiff. Humble Plaintiff, Dated: ________ (Syed Noor-ul-Hassan Gillani)

Through: MUHAMMAD AMIN MALIK Advocate High Court,

RIAZ-UL-HASSAN Advocate High Court,

38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan.

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan this ____ day of March that the contents of this suit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Plaintiff