' SHEIKH AZMAT SAEED, J.---This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16-5-1998, passed by the learned Additional Judge, Kharian, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents was accepted.
2. This revision petition was admitted to regular hearing on 28-5-1998 and notice was served upon the respondents who entered appearance; and were duly represented by the counsel. Today, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of the fact that name of counsel appears in the cause list. It has also been noticed that respondents were unrepresentated on the las.- several dates of hearing. In the circumstances, the respondents are proceeded ex parte.
3. Brief facts leading to the, filing of this revision petition are that the respondents instituted a suit for declaration along with the consequential relief of possession in respect of the property in dispute claiming title thereto on the basis of deed of relinquishment dated 18-6-1979, allegedly executed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. It was contended in the plaint that in pursuance of the aforesaid relinquishment deed the possession was also transferred to The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. And subsequently, it is alleged, the petitioners encroached upon the suit property.
4. The present petitioner entered appearance, filed the written statement whereafter, issues were framed and evidence led by both the parties. The trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 17- 11-1997 dismissed the suit. The respondents challenged the said judgment and decree by way of an appeal, which was accepted by the First Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 16-5-1998.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard and record of the case appended with the petition has also been perused.
6. Entire case of the respondents is based upon the document dated 18-6-1979 whose genuineness and legal effect has been contested by the petitioners. The trial Court come to the conclusion that the execution of the said document was not proved and the same was even otherwise legally ineffective. The learned First Appellate Court upset the aforesaid findings.
7. At the very outset, it has been noticed that the document in question proposed to be relinquished deed and, therefore, would be compulsorily registrable under section 17 of the Registration Act. However, the document in question is unregistered.
8. Furthermore, the perusal of the said document would also show that itself purports to be an agreement and is identified as such in the body of the documents itself.
9. In the above circumstances, the said document cannot on its own create title in favour of the respondents sustaining a suit for declaration and possession.
10. A perusal of the contents of the document clearly show that no consideration is mentioned therein, which too would delude the document of its legal effect especially as there is no cogent evidence for payment of consideration and the scant oral evidence in this behalf is not only dubious and also inadmissible.
11. It is also apparent from the record that neither both the alleged marginal witnesses have been produced nor the Notary Public who is alleged to have attested the said document appeared as witness. Even the stamp vendor has not been produced by the respondents. The document also has clear-cut overwriting. In view of the facts and circumstances it is difficult to hold that the document has been proved in evidence. Even otherwise, it is a matter of record that on the same date a sale-deed was executed by the petitioners in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents regarding another parcel of land. If the intent of the parties was to transfer the land in dispute, the same could have been included in the same sale-deed or another sale-deed could have been executed. Thus, the entire case of the respondents even otherwise does not appeal to reason.
12. In view of the above, the judgment and decree dated 16-5-1998, passed by the First Appellate Court is not sustainable in law and is hereby set aside with the result that the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 17-11-1997 dismissing the suit of the respondents is restored. Disposed of accordingly.