UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.- This civil revision challenges the judgment of the learned District Judge, Narowal dated 11.3.2002 whereby the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Dated 17.7.2001 granting partly the relief prayed in the suit was reversed and the suit was "deemed dismissed".
2. The petitioner before this Court had filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of sale-deed dated 14.11.1994 and for possession of the house/property measuring 8 marlas bounded as described in para-3 of the plaint situated in Mauza Nounar, Tehsil and District Narowal. The petitioners/plaintiffs in the suit are the legal heirs of Ghulam Muhammad. The said Ghulam Muhammad alongwith Mehdi Khan, impleaded as respondent/defendant No. 3, are alleged in the plaint to have purchased the aforesaid property in equal shares under an unregistered sale-deed dated 23.7.1957 (Exh. P.2) executed. In their favour by its alleged owners, namely Muhammad Yaqoob and Shaukat Ali. Ghulam Muhammad is stated to have constructed a house and a shop on the said land. On the basis of the said title the petitioners/plaintiffs claimed that a subsequent registered sale-deed of the said property measuring 8 marlas executed by Jilal Din respondent/defendant No. 2 (Exh. D.1) registered on 14.11.1994 in favour of Muhammad Arshad. Respondent/defendant No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 1,70,000/- is illegal and merits cancellation. Alleged Inayat Ullah who was a tenant in the said property of Ghulam Muhammad predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs had unlawfully handed over the property to his relation Jilal Din.
Defendant/respondent No. 2 who had thereafter fraudulently executed the impugned sale- deed and handed over possession to the vendee therein, defendant/respondent No. 1.
3. The respondents/defendants resisted the suit, inter alia, on the ground that Shaukat and Yaqoob, the alleged vendors of the disputed property to Ghulam Muhammad, had no concern with the same, which was at all matenal times owned by and remained in the possession of Jilal Din who had executed the registered sale-deed impugned in the suit and had transferred possession of the suit property to defendant/respondent No. 1.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. On feature of the case that is dis-regarded by the Court of first instance is the fact that Mehdi Khan one of the alleged co-owners of the disputed property alongwith the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest Ghulam Muhammad is not a plaintiff in the suit but has in fact issued a document namely a certificate of ownership of the suit property dated 13.11.1994 (Exh. D.2) in his capacity as Chairman of the Union Council stating that respondent/defendant No. 2 Jilal Din was the sole owner having possession of the suit property. If the sale-deed of 1957 claimed by the petitioners is assumed to be valid and effective, even then the claim by the petitioners/plaintiffs on behalf of Ghulam Muhammad can only be to the extent of 4 marlas and not 8 marlas as asserted in the plaint. Clearly tha plaint has sought excessive relief in this respect, which reflects upon the seriousness of its claim. Another significant consequence of this certificate is that the un-registered sale-deed of 1957 (Exh. P1) asserted by the petitioners/plaintiffs as their document of title is disowned by one of the co-sharers therein namely, the said Mehdi Khan. This renders dubious the claim of the petitioners based on a disowned title deed. Needless to say, the petitioners/plaintiffs did not produce any revenue record to show their status or possession in relation to the disputed land or about quality/nature of the title of the vendor to their predecessor-in-interest that is Shaukat and Yaqoob. If Exh. P1, being an unregistered document of transfer had not been noted in the revenue record then surely the title of Shaukat and Yaqoob should have been established with reference to the same record. Equally the induction of on Inayat Ullah, claimed by one of the plaintiffs in his statement as PW-1, as tenant of the suit property is a vague assertion that is made without reference to any document or the revenue record.
6. The petitioners/plaintiffs did not produce any witness to the execution of their alleged sale-deed of 23.7 1957 and instead soil ((page blur)) jht the protection of Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, in respect of the said document being 30 years old, to avoid its proof in evidence.
Although one of the plaintiffs PW-1 has expressly admitted that both of the alleged vendors in the said sale-deed are alive yet neither of them nor any marginal witness had been produced to prove the document in accordance with Article 78 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, rather one of the alleged vendors namely Muhammad Yaqoob is marginal witness of registered sale-deed (Exh.
D1) impugned in the suit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has sounded a note of caution in its judgment in Muhammad Yousaf Khatak Vs. S.M. Ayoob (PLD 1973 SC 160) wherein the importance of bringing evidence regarding identity of the handwriting and the signatures of the parties to a document to be proved in evidence have been emphasized. As a means to avoid that objection the petitioners/plaintiffs have sought the cover of Article 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. This presumption is only available once it is proved that a document is 30 years old. In the present case, neither the parties to the document nor the marginal witnesser. Thereto nor other corroborative evidence has been produced in evidence to assert as to when this agreement was executed, In this state of the record, the condition tor attracting the statutory presumption is not satisfied. Therefore, the unregistered sale-deed of 23.7.1957 cannot receive recognition and acceptance by a Court of law as a document that is 30 years old. Without the said basic document the case of the petitioners has no legs to stand upon.
7. In the result by upholding the judgment of first Appellate Court, the revision petition is dismissed but on account the variance in the findings of the lower Courts the parties are left to bear their own costs.