' On 20-7-1987 Lal, the father of the respondents filed a suit against the petitioner. In the plaint it was stated that he is an illiterate aged and simpleton whereas the petitioner is a clever person who took him along to the Court by representing that he wants to obtain the suit-land on lease and got his thumb-impressions on several documents. Later he gave out that he has got sale-deeds registered in his favour. The record was checked up and it was found that the petitioner got a power of attorney registered on 14-6-1986, which was cancelled on 24-6-1986. About two months ago the plaintiff in order to obtain loan needed revenue papers when he came to know that the petitioner got registered the impugned sale-deeds (two) on 22-7-1986. He stated that he had never agreed to sell and had not received any consideration and has not got the documents registered. He continues in possession as owner. A declaration was accordingly sought that he is owner in possession of the suit-land and said sale-deeds are void. The petitioner in his written statement proceeded to state that on 14-5-1986, the deceased plaintiff executed an agreement promising to sell the land to him for Rs.3,50,000. Later a dispute arose between the parties and litigation commenced. Respectables got the matter settled and Muhammad A slam was appointed as arbitrator vide arbitration agreement dated 7-6-1986 and at long last the plaintiff executed and got registered sale-deed on 22-7-1986. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 14-7- 1994. A learned Additional District Judge, Chiniot, allowed the appeal of the respondents (L.Rs) and decreed the suit on 13-12-1995.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the evidence has not been properly read.
According to him valid execution of the sale-deeds and all other documents have been proved. He has also objected that the suit was not competent and suit for cancellation of sale-deeds ought to have been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner failed to prove sale-deeds or other documents and that he had conducted himself fraudulently with the help of his close relatives. According to him since the deceased plaintiff was not party to the document having denied its execution. The relief prayed for was appropriate.
3. I have gone through copies of the records with the assistance of the learned counsel. I have already reproduced above the material contents of the pleadings. It appears that Lal plaintiff died before the commencement of evidence in the case. However, his son Faiz Ahmad appeared as P.W.-3 to state that his father was the owner in possession of the land and on his death the L.Rs. Are in cultivating possession and also residing there. He stated that his father never sold the land and in fact had not received any amount as price. He died at the age of 70 years. His father had not affixed any thumb-impression. The petitioner managed a general power of attorney which was later cancelled. Since the petitioner had made positive assertion that the land had been validly purchased by him he was to discharge the said burden. Now Muhammad Ali D.W.-1 is scribe. He stated that Exhs.D-1 and D-2 sale-deeds were written by him and this was done upon the asking of Lal plaintiff. In cross-examination he stated that he has not brought his register with him. He also admitted that he had not deposited his register anywhere. He admitted that he does not personally know the parties to the said documents and that he had not got them identified. He did not remember as to whether he called upon the parties to show their N.I.Cs. He also admitted that he does not know the witnesses noted on the said documents. Nothing, therefore, turns on the statement of this witness. D.W.-5 is Allah Bakhsh. He is aged 24 years. He states that he knew Lal as well as the petitioner as he is Lambardar of Chak No.204-GB, Chiniot. He was present at the time of execution and registration of the sale-deed and had identified Lal who appeared before the Registrar and affixed his thumb-impressions and received Rs.1,50,000 in tile presence of the Sub- Registrar. He states that Lal was 50/55 years of age at the time of execution of Exhs.D-1 and D-2 while he was aged 19 years. He denied that Lal had not delivered the possession to the petitioner.
He insisted that the possession was given in July, 1986. He admitted that daughter of the petitioner is married to Haq Nawaz who is first cousin of this witness. He denied that Lal died at the age of 71/72 years. He expressed ignorance as to whether Lal was in possession of his N.I.C. He states that he was brought by the petitioner from the village. Now a perusal of Exhs.D-1 and D-2 would show that the witnesses to the execution of these documents are Muhammad Aslam son of Baqar Khan and Haji Manzoor son of Haji Mubahat Din. Haji Manzoor Ahmad D.W.3 is marginal witness to Exhs.D-1 and D-2 and he has stated that when he went to the spot the document was being written and that no consideration changed hand in his presence. In his cross-examination he stated that Lal was aged 71/72 years. He admitted that his daughter is married to Umer Daraz the brother of the petitioner and another daughter is married to Subah the son of maternal uncle of the petitioner. He states that he was not present at the time of negotiation. He states that he put only one signature on each Exhs.D-1 and D-2 and had not appeared anywhere else. He states that no relative of Lal who has a son and daughter were present. Regarding Muhammad Aslam he has stated that the sister of the petitioner is married to him. He then stated that the petitioner had never been in possession of the suit-land.
4. D.W.-4 is Muhammad Aslam the other witness to Exhs.D-1 and D-2. He stated that he was appointed as arbitrator by the parties and he got the matter settled and Lal agreed to get the sale-deeds registered. He further stated that he had not given any award in writing. He then stated that he had informed Haji Manzoor Ahmad D.W.-3 about the facts of writing of Exhs.D-1 and D-2.
Manzoor Ahmed D.W.-3 states that he came on his own as he was present in Court to meet the Resident Magistrate. He further stated that when arbitration agreement was got written, no suit was pending. He further confirmed that when Exhs.D-1 and D-2 were being written no person came and no person left. He states that after signing the documents he left.
5. Haji Muhammad Waris is D.W.-2. He has been produced to prove the agreement dated 14-5-1986 Exh.D-3. He states in his cross-examination that he did not know the parties before Exh.P-3 was scribed and that he had never gone to Chak No.204 in his life. According to him Lal himself told him that he is Lal and he had not got the fact verified from anyone. He then states that that was only time in his life he saw Lal and he never met him after that. D.W.-6 is Daulat Khan who has stated that receipt Exh.D-4 was executed by Lal and he received Rs.40,000.
6. This witness {{URDU TEXT}} of Umer Daraz the brother of the petitioner. He stated that the possession is with legal heirs of Lal. He says that along with receipt an arbitration agreement was also executed which is Exh.D-5.
7. Having read the said evidence on record, and considering the same in juxtaposition to the factum of cancellation of power of attorney on 24-6-1986. The alleged execution of the arbitration agreement on 7-6-1986 filing of the suit by the petitioner against the respondents (Exh.D-10) on 25- 6-1986 when Muhammad Aslam D.W.-4 states that he had settled all the matters on 7-6-1986. All the witnesses being closely related to the petitioner, only stranger being young Lambardar Allah Bakhsh D.W.-5 who has stated that Lal was aged 50/55 years when everybody else stated that he was 70 years at the time of execution of Exhs.D-1 and D-2, and controverting the admitted fact that the possession was never delivered to the petitioner, lead me to the conclusion that the evidence has been correctly read by the learned Additional District Judge while passing the impugned judgment and decree.
8. So far as the said objection of the learned counsel is concerned, nothing turns on the same. Lal had denied the execution of the documents and as such the relief claimed and granted are proper.
There was no need for him to sue for cancellation. The civil revision is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.