IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MARDAN

1. Fazal Azeem S/o

2. Mst. Zakia
3. Mst. Mutahira D’s/o Molvi Samandar Khan, R’s/o Toru Tehsil and
District Mardan
Plaintiffs

VERSUS

1. Noor Muhammad
2. Muhammad Younas
3. Nisar Muhammad Sons of
4. Mst. Shaman Baigum
5. Mst. Anjuman Baigum
6. Mst. Iqbal Baigum
7. Mst. Hamida Baigum Daughters of Yaqoob Khan R’s/o Toru Tehsil and
District Mardan
8. Patwari Halqa Moza Shahbaz Garhi Tehsil and District Mardan
9. Girdawar Circle Moza Shahbaz Garhi Tehsil and District Mardan
10. Tehsildar Mardan
Defendants
=======================

Suit for Declaration, mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction as pryaed

for in the body of the plaint
=======================

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee Rs. 600/-
Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction Rs. 600/-
=======================
 Respectfully sheweth,

1. That the Predecessor of the plaintiffs namely Molvi Samandar Khan,

Predecessor of the Defendants No-1 to 7 namely Yaqoob Khan and one Ayub
Khan (father of Idrees Khan) were real brothers interse and recorded owners
of half of the Khewat survey numbers 3266-3267-3268 Khewat No-739
measuring 56 Kanals and 5 Marlas and of 12 shares out of total 48 shares in
survey numbers 3286-3282 Khewat No-769 measuring 185 Kanals and 11
Marlas as per the periodical record for 1941/42 situated at Moza Toru Tehsil
and District Mardan. The share of each brother in Khewat No-739 came to 9
Kanals and 7-1/2 Marlas while in Khewat No-769 came to 15 Kanals and 9
Marlas. Copies are annexed herewith.

2. That the predecessor of the plaintiffs namely Samandar Khan gifted his entire
shares in the suit Khewats No-739 and 769 of 1941/42 (which total land came
to 24.83 Kanals) in favour of Molvi Muhammad Idrees S/o Muhamad Ayub
Khan vide mutation No-2513 and later on Molvi Muhammad Idrees
exchanged this land with the predecessor of the defendants namely
Muhammad Yaqoob vide mutations No-2672 and 2851 or others which are
proved through evidence (because of the entries of column of transaction in
mutations). Copies are annexed herewith.

3. That the gift had taken place before the marriage of Molvi Samandar Khan,
the predecessor of the present plaintiffs and after his marriage, all the three
noted above persons once again settled the matter in the since that half the
share of the gifted property measuring 12 Kanals 9 Marlas was given back to
Molvi Samandar Khan. As by that time the exchange mutations had already
been attested therefore the property couldn’t be reverted back directly from
Molvi Muhammad Idrees in favour of Molvi Samandar Khan.

4. That In fact Yaqoob Khan (the predecessor in interest of the defendants No-1
to 7) had directly entered two mutations No-3196 and 3197 of 1952 in favour
of Molvi Samandar Khan to the extent of half of the gifted property (i.e. land
 measuring 4 Kanals and 14 Marlas in Khewat No-739 and land measuring 7
Kanals and 14 Marlas in Khewat No-769 of the year 1941/42, total measuring
12 Kanals and 9 Marlas). That the predecessors had also executed and acted
upon private settlements in respect of the entire property. Inadvdertnatly
mutation No-3197 has been shown as rejected but infact valid gifts had been
made by Yqqoob Khan in favour of Molvi Samandar of the land noted above
and then mutations were entered. All the three requirements of gift had been
completed and possession delivered to the predecessor of the plaintiffs. Since
then the plaintiffs are in possessions of their shares. These mutations also find
reflection in the revenue record. As mutation No-3197 has wrongly been
shown as rejected, therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to its acceptance.
Attested copies of the mutations and revenue record of Perth Patwar and Perth
Sarkar are annexed herewith.

5. That thereafter though mutation No-3447 is shown from the predecessor of

the plaintiffs in favour of Yaqoob Khan, the predecessor in interest of the
defendants No-1 to 7 but this mutation is wrong and illegal because the
predecessor of the plaintiffs has not made any gift or transaction in favour of
the defendants No-1 to 7 or their predecessor and no requirements of gifts
including offer, acceptance and delivery of possession has been made, the
predecessor of the defendants No-1 to 3 has not entered or attested any
mutation or other deed in their favour. The mutation as such, is liable to
cancellation

6. That the plaintiffs got knowledge of the wrong rejection of mutation

No-3197 in July 2012 and of the baseless and illegal mutation No-3447
during arguments on an appeal before the Court of Miss. Rozina
Rahman In October 2012 and thereafter the plaintiffs approached the
defendants for validation of mutation No-3197 and cancellation of
mutation No-3447 but they refused some two weeks ago; hence a cause
of action and then the suit in hand.
7. That through the suit in hand the plaintiffs seek a declaration that as
detailed above they are entitled to the declaration that mutation No-3197
has wrongly been rejected and that the plaintiffs are entiitled to its
acceptance and validation. The plaintifffs als seek declaration that
mutation No-3447 is illegal and baseless; as such is liable to
cancellation. The plaintifffs seek mandatory injunction for correction of
the revneue record in the sense of acceptance and validation of mutation
No-3197 and cancellation of mutation No-3447. The plaintiffs also seek
perpetual prohibiotry injunction restraining the defendants from
alienation of the suit land through whatever means, from showing the
suit land as their ownerhsip, from interference in the posssesion of the
plaintiffs and from all other acts and deeds to the prejudice of the
plaintiffs.

8. That value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction are
given at the heading and this Honourable court has got jurisdiction to
entertain the suit in hand.

It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs may
kindly be decreed as prayed for with costs.

Date: 15/12/2012

==========
Fazal Azeem etc
Plaintiffs
Through,
Naveed-ur-Rahman
Advocate, Mardan
AFFIDAVIT

I Naveed-ur-Rahman, counsel for the plaintiffs do hereby solemnly affirm that all the
contents of this plaint are true and correct to the best of my information given to me
by my clients and to the best of the knowledge and belief of my clients.
Naveed-ur-Rahman
Deponent
 IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MARDAN

Fazal Azeem etc

VERSUS
Noor Muhammad

===========

Civil Suit
============

Subject: - Application for the grant of temporary injunction till disposal of the suit
in hand for restraining defendants from from all acts and deeds to the prejudice of
the plaintiffs.

=============

Respectfully sheweth,

1. That the suit mentioned-above has been filed before this Honorable
Court.
2. That the suit in hand has been filed on very strong grounds and the
Petitioners hope its success.
3. That Respondents are bent upon alienation of the suit property on the
basis of wrong entries in the revenue record and if they were not
restrained during the pendency of the suit in hand, the Petitioners would
suffer irreparable loss.
4. That balance of convenience also lies in favor of the Petitioners.
It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that by accepting the application in
hand Respondents may kindly be restrained from interference in the suit
property till the disposal of the suit in hand.

Date: 15/12/2012

==========
Fazal Azeem etc
 Plaintiffs
Through,
Naveed-ur-Rahman
Advocate, Mardan
AFFIDAVIT

I Naveed-ur-Rahman, counsel for the plaintiffs do hereby solemnly affirm that all the
contents of this plaint are true and correct to the best of my information given to me
by my clients and to the best of the knowledge and belief of my clients.

Naveed-ur-Rahman
Deponent