1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 6-6-2001 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, whereby Civil Revision No,160-D of 1989 filed by the petitioner was dismissed maintaining the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
2. ' The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner along with his brother was allotted Government Land measuring 200 Kanals in equal share under Grow More Food Scheme. He is stated to have leased out his share of land measuring 100 Kanals in the year 1970 to one Suleman for six years for a consideration of Rs, 1, 600. It was his cases that when he intended to resume the land, said Suleman claimed its ownership on the basis of an oral sale vide Mutation No, 70, dated 27-11-1971 on the basis of an earlier order of the District Collector dated 24- 8-1971 passed under section .19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. He took exception to the aforesaid mutation as having been secured through misrepresentation, fraud and forgery by filing a suit. The same was resisted by the respondents. Out of contradictory pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, the parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court through its judgment, dated 5-1-1988 dismissed the suit. The petitioner filed an appeal which too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar, through his judgment dated 5- 4-1989. Civil Revision No,160-D of 1989 filed by the petitioner also met the same fate as it was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court at Bahawalpur Bench through the judgment dated 6-6-2001, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. ' We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record with their assistance. We have noticed that this litigation is going on for the last quarter of a century. The main point in this case is, whether the petitioner on his own volition voluntarily transferred his rights to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Muhammad Suleman. A perusal of the impugned judgments demonstrates that even the witnesses produced by the petitioner do not advance his case any further. The petitioner Niaz Muhammad himself executed the agreement in favor of said Suleman wherein the receipt of Rs,5, 000 was clearly mentioned. He appointed one Abdul Razzak as his special attorney for the execution of the sale-deed. The petitioner himself submitted an application before the Collector, Bahawalnagar for permission to sell the disputed property. Tehsildar recorded his statement and accorded permission vide order, dated 24-8-1971 on the basis of which Mutation No,70 was sanctioned on 26-11-1971. Everything in this regard was done either by the petitioner himself or at his instance. His plea that the attorney Abdul Razzak executed the sale-deed in favor of his father with his special permission is totally devoid of any force in the present circumstances when he himself secured all the documents on the basis of which, as already stated, the impugned mutation was sanctioned. The two Courts below i,e, the learned trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court have thoroughly thrashed all the issues involved in the case in hand and the learned Single Judge has given his own reasons for upholding the same. It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge which is in the following terms:-- "(5) After considering the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the oral as well as documentary evidence, it is found that there is voluminous and consistent evidence to prove that the petitioner had transferred his rights in the land in question in favor of respondents. This was stated by the petitioner's own witness P.W.1, Abdul Ghafoor Clerk, D.C.
4. Office, Bahawalnagar as well as D.W.1 stamp-vendor who stated to have sold two stamp papers to the petitioner for agreement to sell and power of attorney. D.W.2 Muhammad Nasir Shah scribed Exh.D.l and Exh.D.2 as per instructions of the petitioner. D.W.5 Talib Hussain is the real brother and co-sharer in the land in question who confirmed the sale by the petitioner of his share. D.W.6, D.W.7, D.W.8 and D.W.9 have all consistently deposed about the sale by the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner had himself applied to the Collector for obtaining N.O.C. For the transfer of his rights under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Land (Punjab) Act of 1912 upon which the N.O.C.
5. Exh.P.2 was issued. In view of this overwhelming evidence it is idle for the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the attorney should have sought his permission when the petitioner himself had all along participated and executed the agreement to sell and the disputed mutation himself. The contention has no force. The second contention based upon section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act is also baseless. Firstly, the transaction involving the sale of rights under section 19 are not hit by section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act as these rights are not full rights which are proposed to be transferred. Secondly the plaintiff/ petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief as one who seeks equity must do equity himself. The conduct of the plaintiff/petitioner, as is depicted from his statement and also from the statements of his witnesses which shows that his stance was most contradictory. The third contention of offering special oath to Muhammad Suleman is equally baseless. A perusal of the statement of the plaintiff as P.W.4 would show that while in the earlier part of his statement, he categorically denies knowing the said Suleman, he proposed the offer of special oath in the later part of his statement. This conduct besides being contumacious also falls in short of the requirement of Article163 of the Qanune-Shahadat Order, 1984 where the plaintiff is first obliged to make the statement on special oath himself and then to offer the special oath to the other party."
6. ' Resultantly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the instant petition being without any force is hereby dismissed and leave declined.