' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---Mst. Muhammad Bibi respondent No,1 herein had instituted a suit for declaration and injunction with consequential relief that she was owner of the suit property and that Mutation No,161 purported to have been sanctioned in favour of Muhammad Yousaf her brother, petitioner herein, was result of fraud and forgery and was inoperative qua her rights. The suit was contested by the petitioner/defendant pleading that Mst. Muhammad Bibi, his sister and Mst. Hussain Bibi, his mother had sold their share of the land in his favour for Rs,1 lac. Mutation No,161 sanctioned on 28-5-1992 was relied upon in support of his claim and assertion. From the pleadings of the parties the necessary. Issues were framed by the Court whereafter evidence produced by the parties was recorded. On appreciation of the evidence the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot decreed the suit vide his judgment dated 12-6-1997 whereagainst the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot on 14-7-2001. These concurrent judgments have been assailed through this revision petition.
2. None has appeared to prosecute this petition despite calls made.In view of Muhammad Sadiq v.
Mst. Bashiran and 9 others (PLD 2000 SC 820), I propose 'to examine the legality of the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for respondent No, 1 has been heard in the matter who supports the concurrent view taken by the Court below and contends that evidence on the record has correctly been appreciated by the two Courts below and findings -recorded are fully supported.
3. Though number of issues were framed by the trial Court yet in the context of the controversy issue No,6 was of importance and significance i.e, "Whether the defendant No,4 has purchased the property in dispute from the plaintiff in lieu of consideration Rs,100,000 vide Mutation No,161 dated 25-5-1992? OPD".
' In setting up the plea of sale, by his sister in his favour, Mutation No,161 Exh.D.3 and a report in Roznamcha Waqiati Exh.D.1 were relied upon by the petitioner, whereas the respondent/plaintiff had denied of any such' sale or her statement before the Patwari or the Revenue Officer. In view of the denial of the alleged transaction of sale by Mst. Muhammad Bibi, respondent/plaintiff who was an illiterate, simpleton woman of advance age (79 years) hailing from a rural background, the B onus of proving any such transaction was upon the petitioner/defendant. She herself had appeared as P.W.1 denying the alleged sale. Whereas Muhammad Yousaf petitioner appeared as D.W.1. The evidence led by the petitioner in support of his assertion of sale has not been found convincing and satisfactory by the Courts below. The statement made by the petitioner as D.W.1.
Which is fraught with inconsistencies has been duly considered and analyzed by the trial Court who came to the conclusion that a concocted story of payment of consideration was tried to be built in which he failed. The appellate Court has overagain considered the depositions of the witnesses and other evidence and also come to the conclusion that the transaction and the factum of sale could not be proved by the petitioner/defendant. Needless to reiterate that mutation itself is not a document of title/sale and the person setting up title on that basis is required to prove the transaction of sale through a cogent and convincing evidence independent of the mutation itself. Reference in this context may he made to Naja and 2 others v. Shamand and 4 others (PLD 1985 Lahore 607). After having gone through the evidence on the record. 1 am satisfied that the appreciation of the evidence made by the two Courts below and the approach adopted by them neither suffers from any illegality nor they have committed any irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction. I thus find no justification to interfere with the concurrent judgments rendered by two Courts below.
' The revision petition is accordingly dismissed