Civil Appeal Under Section 96 C.P.

Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the Impugned Judgment

Dated 31/10/2013 and Decree dated 7/11/2013 passed by the
Honorable Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge,Karachi South in Civil
Suit NO. 159/2009 by which the Honorable Curt decreed the suit
filed by the respondent No.1 and 2 begs to prefer the present
Appeal; inter-alia on the following facts and grounds:-

(Copy of the Judgement is attach and marked as Annexure ‘A’

and ‘A/1’)

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. That the father/predecessor in interest of the respondent No.1

and 2 namely late Ismail Kasim and his elder brother Haji
Ahmed Kasim jointly purchased Plot No. bearing Survey No,
79, Sheet No, LY-15(old Survey No. K-7/1/421) totally
measuring 106 Sqyare Yards, satiated un Lyari Quarters,
Karachi. Along with old structure, vide Conveyance Deed of
Immovable Property, duly registered in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Karachi, under Registration No. 1865 Page No.
195/2004, Volume No. 757 of Book No. I, Dated 15/11/1946.
2. That after the death of father/predecessor in interest of the
respondent No.1 & 2 namely Ismail Kasim 50% Share had
been inherited by his two sons i.e. the Respondent No. 1 and
Muhammad Ishaq alias Muhammad Saleem, accordingly the
same has been mutated/transferred in their names in the record
of rights being maintained by the Respondent No.17. It is
further submitted that the respondent NO.1 & 2 entered in land
only measuring 106 Square Yards in the year 1976, while the
Appellant purchased the demised property in the year 1974,
admeasuring 172 Square Yards and also constructed building
on it.
3. That 50% share of the other co-owner namely Haji Ahmed
Kasim has been mutated/transferred in the name of the
Appellant by purchaseing the same, dated 23/10/1974 in the
 record of rights, being maintained by the office of the
Respondent NO.17.
4. That Haji Ahmed Kasim, being co-owner of the suit peroperty
and elder brother of the respondent No.1 & 2
father/predecessor-in-interest retained all the original
documents and papers pertaining to suit property within gim,
who later on delivered the same to the Appellant and same are
not in power and possession of the Appellant.
5. That no onw know regarding whereabouts of the Respondent
NO.2 and the death certificate of the Respondent NO.2 is
forged document, as no ione found is dead body iun te demised
building nor he died at the place mentioned in the death
certificate.
6. That the Appellant paid the demolishing money and also paid
Rs 20000/- to the tenants of vacating the suit property and also
paid the expenses of lease oto Mr. Haji Ahmed Kasim and as
such the same was leased in the name of MR. Haji Ahmed
Kasim in the year 1974.
7. That the Respondent No. 1 entered in 106 Square Yards in
C.D.C in the year 1976.
8. That the Appellant also paid expenses of lease, got wacated
the premises and demolistion as well as miscellaneous
expenses paid by the Appellant, After that the building was
construction on said 172 Square Yards.
9. That the contractor after completion of building given list of
tenants to the Appellant and asked the tenants to pay the rent to
the owner of the building/Appellant.
10. That the Appellant paid the share of the Respondent No. 1 & 2
to them as per agreement but the Respondent No.1 & 2 failed
to pay their share in the property tax, water & sewerage tax and
other utility bills of the building and as such the same were not
paid.
11. That the Appellant paid the share of the Respondent No.1 & 2
as per agreement till March 2006 but when the Respindent
No.1 and 2 failed to pay their share in ttaxes and other utility
bills, the Appellant stopped payment of their shares as per
agreement.
12. That the Appelant never issued abny threat nor taken any
illegal action against the Respondent No. 1 & 2 but he only
relied upon stopping payment of their shares as per agreement
 so that the respondent NO.1 & 2 nay ageee to pay their shares
in taxes of the property and other utility bills but all in vain.
13. That the Appellant filed Civil Suit No. 1033/2008 before the
concerned court, as the respondent No. 1 & 2 illegally and
unlawfully iccupied seven flats/rooms nad also started
damaging them, therefore the suit was filed in order to save
himself from any irreparable loss. The Respondent No.1 and 2
are not paying the rent of the said seven flats/rooms nor paying
taxes of the said flats/rooms to the concerned authority soalso
not paying utility bills.
14.