' On 16-3-1992 the respondent No.1 filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent No.2, seeking a declaration that the registered sale-deed dated 14-4-1969 and Mutation No.564 are forged, fictitious,illegal, null and void and liable to be cancelled and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff/respondent. Permanent injunction was sought restraining the petitioner from interfering with his possession and from changing the nature of the suit-land. Decree for possession was also sought. In the plaint, inter alia, it was specifically stated that he had not executed the sale-deed and that he never sold the land. In his written statement, the petitioner proceeded to assert affirmatively that the respondent had executed the sale-deed and validly sold the property to him.
Inter alia following Issue No.8 was framed by the learned trial Court:-- "8. Whether the registered sale-deed No.79 date 14-4-1969 and Mutation No.564 for the year 1972- 73 are forged, fictitious, illegal, and liable to be cancelled and is ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff?"
' Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide judgment and decree dated 28-6-1994 the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner with a special costs of Rs.5,000. A first appeal filed by the respondent No.1 was heard by a learned ADJ, Rawalpindi, who proceeded to frame the following Issue No.7-A:-- "Whether the plaintiff, in fact, executed the registered sale-deed No. 79 date 14-4-1969 and Mutation No.564 for the year 1972-73 in favour of the respondent? OPD and to remand back the case to the learned trial Court for a fresh decision. This was done vide judgment dated 8-9-2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned ADJ has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction while framing the said Issue No.7-A and in the process to place the burden upon the petitioner. According to the learned counsel the said Issue No.8 completely covered the controversy between the parties. Further contends that the respondent did never complain about the wrong framing of the Issues and absence of the said issue. He relies on the cases of Mst. Sughra Bibi alias Mehran Bibi v. Asghar Khan and another (1988 SCM R 4), Mehr Din (represented by his Legal Heirs v. Dr. Bashir Ahmad Khan and 2 others (1985 SCM R 1) and Munir Ahmad v. Ghulam Qadir (2000 CLC 2000). Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, contends that in view of the pleadings of the parties, it was primarily for the petitioner to have proved a valid sale and execution of the sale-deed in his favour. According to him, it is the duty of the Court to see to it that proper issues are framed and the parties cannot be said to be at fault by not pointing out the defect. He relies upon the case of Mst. Sughran Bibi and others v. Mst. Jameela Begum and others (2001 SCM R 772).
3. I have gone through the available records. I have already reproduced above the relevant contents of the pleadings. The case set up by the respondent No.1 is that he did not sell the land and did not execute the sale-deed. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent validly sold the land and executed the sale-deed. Now a bare look on the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on the said Issue No.8 would show that how the non-framing of the said material issue arising from the pleadings of the parties has prejudiced the case of the espondent/plaintiff. I will suffice by quoting the following extract from his judgment under Issue No.8 (appearing at page 6 thereof) in this behalf:-- "Thirdly, it is alleged that the marginal witnesses of the deed are indefinite persons. The plaintiff never got summoned the marginal witnesses to prove his version."
4.Now the law on the subject is well settled. Whether it be registered sale-deed or a mutation, the moment there is a dispute, the burden is upon the beneficiary i.e. The petitioner in the present case to prove the valid execution of the sale-deed. Reference be made to the case of Abdul Majeed and 6 others v. Muhammad Subhan and 4 others (1999 SCM R 1245). Their Lordships thus observed in para. 11 of the judgment at page 1254 of the report:-- "It is axiomatic principle of law that a registered deed by itself, without proof of the execution and the genuineness of the transaction covered by it, would not confer any right. Similarly, a mutation although acted upon in Revenue Record, would not by its own force be sufficient to prove the genuineness of the transaction to which it purports unless the genuineness of the transaction is proved. There is no cavil with the proposition that these documents being part of public record are admissible in evidence but they by their own force would not prove the genuineness and execution of that to which they relate unless the transaction covered by them is substantiated from proof required by law for determining the execution and genuineness of document."
5. It will thus be seen that by all means by way of the impugned order, in fact, the petitioner has been given a chance to prove the validity of sale and execution of the sale-deed alleged by him in his favour. The civil revision is without any force and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.