' This revision petition is directed ' against the judgment dated 9-1-2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Pasrur whereby appeal brought by petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 21-3-1998 passed by learned Civil Judge, Pasrur was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that Syed Mumtaz Hussain and Mehmooda Begum, respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration etc, against the petitioner (Talib Hussain) and others and stated that defendant No.3 (Muhammad Ramzan son of Haider Ali) was owner of disputed house (bearing Khasra No.796 situated in village Kamalpur Tehsil Pasrur).
They further stated that husband of defendant No.2. (Mst. Fatima Bibi) died and thereafter she shifted to Rahimyar Khan along with her children and from there she migrated to Wah Factory where she settled permanently. They maintained that about six years back Mst. Fatima Bibi, defendant No.2 arrived their village, Kamalpur and obtained disputed house (Haveli) on rent from Ramzan Shah because she had no house in the village. However, she left village Kamalpur and later on Ramzan Shah agreed to sell said house in favour of plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs.15,000 and received Rs.5,000 as earnest money vide agreement dated 11-5-1994. The plaintiffs asserted that when Talib Hussain came to know about the said agreement, he got executed registered sale-deed from Mst. Fatima Bibi (defendant No.2) in his favour on 5-10-1994 despite the fact that she was not owner of the same. The plaintiffs stated that registered Sale-deed No.1255 dated 5-10-1994 was based on fraud because Mst. Fatima Bibi was not owner of disputed house.
They further stated that as per agreement dated 11-5-1994 Muhammad Ramzan, defendant No.3 executed registered sale-deed in their favour on 30-3-1995. Talib Hussain filed a suit for permanent injunction against them, obtained stay order and constructed a room and violated the stay order.
They asked the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to hand over to them possession of the disputed house and to get cancelled sale-deed dated 5-10-1994 but they refused, therefore, they were constrained to file suit. Talib Hussain, defendant/petitioner mentioned in written statement that Nizam Din was not predecessor-in-interest of Ramzan Shah and he was not owner of disputed house. He further mentioned that Ramzan Shah had no concern with the disputed house rather Mst. Fatima Bibi was owner of the same. Learned trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence of the parties and decreed the suit brought by respondents/plaintiffs vide judgment dated 21-3-1998. The petitioner filed appeal thereagainst which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 9-1-2003. Hence, this revision petition.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above the case of the petitioner is that he had purchased disputed house from Faima Bibi whereas case of respondents/plaintiffs is that Muhammad Ramzan son of Haider Ali was owner of suit property and they had purchased the same from him. Also that Mst. Fatima Bibi was in possession of the suit property as tenant, therefore, she could not transfer the same in favour of petitioner. The plaintiffs/respondents examined P.W.1, Muhammad )(min., who stated that father of Ramzan was owner of disputed property and later on he (Muhammad Ramzan) inherited the same. He further stated that he knew Fakhar-ud-Din, husband of Mst. Fatima Bibi but he had no concern with the suit property because house of Fakhar-udDin had been auctioned during execution of a money decree. He deposed that Fatima Bibi had shifted to Rahimyar Khan and thereafter she shifted to Wah Factory and she obtained disputed house from Ramzan on nominal rental. The witness further deposed that registered sale-deed executed by her was invalid. He stated that Ramzan agreed to sell suit property in favour of plaintiffs vide agreement, Exh.P.1 and he was witness of the same and that Talib Hussain had occupied the disputed property in the absence of Mumtaz Hussain, plaintiff, P.W.2, Zahoor Ahmad also made similar statement, Mumtaz Hussain, plaintiff appeared as P.W.3 in support of his version. The statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are convincing and A confidence inspiring and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. The plaintiffs also tendered in their evidence documents Exh.P-1 to Exh.P-7. It is clear from the statements of P.W..1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 that Muhammad Ramzan was owner of suit property and he transferred the same in favour of respondents/plaintiffs. Likewise documents produced by the plaintiffs too show that Muhammad Ramzan was owner of suit-land and that Fatima Bibi had no concern with the same.
5. It is pertinent to note that petitioner had filed suit for permanent injunction against the respondents/plaintiffs on 3-4-1995 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 13-6-1996 when plaintiffs made statement that they would not dispossess him illegally. The plaintiffs have brought on record copies of plaintiff and order dated 13-6-1996 as Exh.P-6 and Exh.P-8. This too shows that claim of the petitioner is baseless. Even otherwise petitioner has failed to produce any worthwhile evidence in support of his version. He examined D.W.1 Maqbool Ahmad and he himself appeared, as D.W.2 but their statements have no value because the case of petitioner is that disputed house was ancestral property of Fatima Bibi but he has not produced any evidence in support of his version. Moreover the registered sale-deed on the strength whereof the petitioner is laying claim to the ownership of suit property remains unproved on the touch-stone of mandatory requirement of Article 17 of the Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984 according to which at least two marginal witnesses.
Of the said document ought to have been produced for establishing the execution and validity thereof, So I find that learned trial Court had rightly decreed the suit brought by respondents/plaintiffs. The judgment dated 9-1-2003 shows that learned Additional District Judge decided the appeal after appraisal of entire material available on record. Paras Nos.10 and 11 of said judgment read as under:- "It so transpires from Exh.P-3 that Muhammad Ramzan son of Haider Ali is the legal heir of Nizam Din, and that Nizam Din son of Abdullah was the brother of Mehtab Shah. It so transpires from Exh.P-4 that Mehtab Shah was owner of the piece of land over which the disputed house was later on constructed. The P. Ws. Including respondent No.1/plaintiff have categorically deposed that Ramzan Shah son of Haider Ali was the exclusive owner of the "disputed house and that Mehtab Hussain the respondent/plaintiff purchased it from. Said Ramzan Shah in lieu of consideration.
Under the circumstances, when the documentary as well as oral evidenced, as produced by respondent No.1 is critically appraised, it becomes manifest that Ramzan Shah was the factual owner of the disputed property and that he was fully competent to transfer its ownership in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Ramzan Shah as D.W.3 has also submitted his written statement wherein he has conceded the respondent's claim about its alienation in their favour. The respondents have also adduced the agreement deed Exh.P-1 showing that Ramzan Shah agreed to sell the disputed house to the respondents Nos.1 and 2 in lieu of conSider4ion of Rs.15,000 and that he also Teceived earnest money Rs.5,000 in presence of Witnesses. Muhammad Yaseen son of Ghulam Muhammad is one of the marginal witnesses of this document and he has corroborated the contents of Exh.P-1 in toto. The terms and conditions of this agreement were complied with and finally the house in dispute was registered in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 vide registered sale-deed Exh.P-2. Zahoor Ahmad son of Nazir Ahmad D.W.2 is one of the marginal witnesses of this document who has categorically corroborated its contents showing that house in dispute finally stands alienated in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
' When the version of the appellant is put in juxtaposition with the stand as taken by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 it becomes crystal clear that the appellant's plea is totally false and unbelievable. The appellant has raised a contention in his written statement that he has attained the ownership rights of the property in dispute from Mst. Fatima Bibi (defendant No.2). However, the appellant has been unable to prove the ownership of Mst. Fatima Bibi through his oral as well as documentary evidence. Therefore the alienation of the property in dispute in favour of the appellant by Mst. Fatima vide sale-deed Exh.D-1 is void and nullity in the eye of law as Mst. Fatima Bibi was never the owner of property in dispute and she has transferred only inchoate title in favour of the appellant."
' It is well-reasoned judgment. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Likewise there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence, therefore, there is no justification to disturb the concurrent findings recorded by learned Courts below.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that this revision petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.