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
Daughters
7. Farzana Malik all Rajput by caste
8. Mst. Hamida Malik Widow 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, 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.

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. 5-

8 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 RIAZ-UL-HASSAN
Advocate High Court, 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