1. This Civil Revision application is directed against, the impugned judgment dated 9-6-2003 and decree dated 13-6-2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mehar in Civil Appeal No,13 of 2001 whereby the judgment dated 30-5-2001 and decree dated 7-6-2001 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mehar in F.C. Suit No,58 of 1996 re: Wazir v. Province of Sindh and others was maintained. The facts as enumerated in the case are that agricultural land bearing S. No,518 (0-24) acres and.
2. S.No,148 (2-36) acres situated in Deh Baledai, Taluka Mehar was owned and possessed by the applicant, out of which S.No,518 entire and 0-50 paisa share out of S.No,148 admeasuring 2-2 acres of the suit-land. It is stated by the applicant that the respondent No,6 is his wife, while the respondents Nos.7 and 8 are the brothers of the respondent No,6. The applicant contracted another marriage with the consent of respondent No,6 and both wives of the applicant were residing in the same house. The relationship became strained after second marriage and respondent No,6 took away to Gadjani purpose, but the said respondents did not allow the respondent No,6 to live in the house of applicant. The plaintiff has stated that the respondents Nos.7 and 8 are influential persons and they threatened for dispossess him from the suit-land. They have also disclosed that the suit-land has been sold out by the applicant to the respondent No,6 during the year, 1985 and as such respondents Nos.6 to 8 denied the right and title of the applicant and threatened the applicant as he was tried to execute the suit land, whereas the claim of applicant is that he has neither sold out the suit land to respondent No,6 nor appeared before the Sub-Registrar nor received any consideration nor delivered the possession to the respondent No,6 who claiming its possession by enjoying the right of ownership by paying the land revenue assessm ent to the Government. It is further stated by the applicant that the above said respondents did not pay any heed and as such the applicant had the cause of action for filing the suit after coming to know about the false and forged sale-deed and same was denied by the applicant. The applicant filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction and cancellation of sale-deed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mehar on 6-3-1996 with the following prayers:- "(a) To decree the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant and declare that the suit land is the property of the plaintiff and the defendant No,6 has got no right or interest in it.
(b) To cancel the sale-deed dated 23rd September, 1985 in favour of the defendant No,6 being false, fictitious, null and void; without consideration and possession and be cancelled and such intimation for cancellation of sale-deed may be given to the Sub-Registrar concerned to make such a note of cancellation in his register.
(c) To permanently restrain the defendants Nos.2, 3 and 6 to 8 not to take forcible possession of the suit-land from the plaintiff otherwise than by due course of law and the defendant No,6 be restrained not to sell the suit-land on the basis of the alleged false sale-deed to any one else herself or through her men or agents directly or indirectly in any manner.
(d) For grant of costs or any other relief or reliefs whatever the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case." The trial Court issued the notice to the parties where the respondents Nos.2 to 5 did not appear and it was ordered that their case will proceed ex parte while the respondents Nos.6 to 8 contested the matter and filed the written statement. The respondent No,6 in the statement has admitted that she is legally wedded wife of the applicant and was living with him. It was also admitted that the applicant had contracted second marriage due, to strained relations, the applicant and driven out the respondent. No,6 from his house and she was residing with her brothers being respondents Nos.7 and 8. It was claimed by them that the suit land was sold by the applicant to her on 23-9- 1985 through registered sale deed and transferred the possession and record of rights. Were mutated in her favour and land is possessed by her and cultivating the same and the land revenue assessm ent was deposited. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether plaintiff is owner of the suit-land?
(2) Whether the registered sale-deed in favour of the defendant No,6 dated 23-9-1985 is false, fictitious and managed one and is null and void without consideration and possession, therefore, is liable to be cancelled?
(3) Whether the suit is not in proper form and is not maintainable at law?
(4) Whether suit is time-barred?
(5) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed?
(6) What should the decree be? In the trial Court both the parties examined themselves and produced the documents in their support and after hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The applicant preferred an appeal, which too was dismissed. Hence this revision has been filed. Miss Faiz-un-Nissa Channa learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the impugned judgments/decrees are the result of non-reading and misreading of evidence and there is material irregularity and illegality of two Courts below. It is further urged that the trial Court has erred by not considering the documents produced by the applicant and affidavit of independent witness, who have clearly stated that no such transaction was made nor the applicant had appeared before the Sub-Registrar and even the consideration was not paid in his presence.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case reported in 2000 SCM R 1058 and submits that the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have examined the judgment and evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court.
4. It is admitted fact that the transaction was made between husband and wife and due to strained relations by entering into second marriage, the plaintiff resiled from his sale-deed, which was executed on 23-9-1985. The suit was instituted on 6-3-1996 after a period of about more than ten years.. The assertion of the applicant/plaintiff in the plaint is that he came to know about the execution of registered sale deed a week back prior to filing of the suit. Apparently the suit was time-barred in absence of strong evidence, the document which is registered one cannot be cancelled because it confers security on human dealings if the registered sale-deed is made and then it is alleged that the same document has been prepared fraudulently and registered document had sanctity attached to it and strong evidence is required to doubt its genuineness.
5. The applicant/plaintiff has not brought sufficient evidence on record that the registered sale-deed was forged or prepared by fictitious person. The respondents/defendants Nos.6 to 8 have produced original registered sale-deed and they have examined witness Ali Dost who had witnessed the registered sale-deed. The trial Court had rightly concluded that the sale-deed was executed and the applicant/plaintiff had sold out the suit land to his wife. The applicant/plaintiff has failed to prove that fictitious person had appeared before the Sub-Registrar for executing the sale-deed. He has failed to examine the attesting witness of the registered sale deed in support of his version nor he has examined the scriber of the document. In the trial Court, applicant/plaintiff has failed to apply for sending his signature/thumb-impression to Handwriting Expert nor examined any official or called record of the Sub-Registrar office. The two Courts below have arrived at proper findings on a registered sale-deed, which was executed, and presumption of truth is also attached with it. The applicant/plaintiff has failed to prove that the registered sale- deed was not executed in favour of the respondent No,6 Mst. Hatti, who happens to be wife of the applicant/plaintiff. The learned counsel for the applicant has failed to pinpoint any illegality or infirmity in the judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below. The concurrent findings of the two Courts below are based on proper appreciation of fact and law. I have come to the conclusion that the impugned judgments and decrees are legal, proper and do not suffer from any defect or irregularity. Resultantly, this civil revision application is dismissed in limine. The above are the reasons of my short order dated 15-9-2003.