' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall decide Civil Revisions Nos.2204 and 2205 of 2000 as somewhat common questions are involved.
2. In the matter of Civil Revision No.2204 of 2000 the respondent purchased suit-land measuring 16 Kanals and 8 Marlas for a consideration of Rs.2,00,000 vide registered sale-deed dated 6-7-1995 while in the matter of Civil Revision No.2205 of 2000 the respondents purchased the suit-land measuring 35 Kanals for a consideration of Rs.5,50,000 vide a registered sale-deed dated 6-7- 1995.
2-A. On 30-10-1995 the petitioner filed the present suits. She claimed to be co-sharer in the suit- land, owner of adjacent land and sharer in amenities. Performance of Talb was pleaded. In both the suits Issue No.1 and Issue No.8 were respectively framed pertaining to Talb as follows:-- "Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements of Talbs in accordance with law? OPP"
' Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court found on the basis of copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1992-93 as also admission in the statement of Ali Nawaz as D.W.1 that the petitioner is co-sharer in the suit-land and has a superior right of preemption. The said issue pertaining to Talb was found against the petitioner. The suits were dismissed vide judgments and decree dated 22-2-2000. First appeals were filed wherein only the said matter of Talb was agitated. The appeals were heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Wazirabad, District Gujranwala, who dismissed both the appeals on 8-7-2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the evidence on record has not been properly read and both the learned Courts below have picked up a portion of statement of the petitioner which otherwise was out of context and have proceeded to non-suit her. Whereas upon the reading of entire evidence the performance of Talb-iMuwathibat stood proved. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgments and decrees by stating that evidence has been properly read. He has also tried to argue that there is no evidence on record that the petitioner is co-sharer in the suit-lands.
4. I have examined the copies of the records, appended with both the civil revisions, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. In both the plaints it was stated that the petitioner acquired knowledge of sale on 13-10-1995 through Muhammad Riaz at 4-00 p.m., at her house whereupon she made the Talb and thereafter are the details of making Talb-i-Ishhad and service of notice on 15-10-1995 under registered covered A.D. In both the cases the petition appeared as P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively. In the matter of Civil Revision No.2204 of 2000 her testimony was recorded on 15-1-2000 while in the matter of Civil Revision No.2005 of 2000 her evidence was recorded on 19-1-1998. She stated in her examination- in-chief that on 13-10-1995 her brother Muhammad Riaz informed her of the sale at her house and she made the Talb. In her cross-examination she stated that it was 4-00 p.m. On 13-10-1995 when she came to know about the sale. Now the learned Courts below have taken note of the following portion of her statement in cross-examination in both the cases:- {{URDU TEXT}} Both the learned Courts below have observed that she came to know about the sale at 2-00 p.m.
And made the Talb at 4-00 p.m. And as such the Talb is not proper. Now to my mind, the said portion has been taken up by the learned Courts below in isolation. Immediately before the said sentence she stated that the moment she was told about the sale she made the Talb. Muhammad Riaz, P.W.2, the said informer also stated that it was at 4-00 p.m. On 13-10-1995 that he told the petitioner about the sale whereupon she made the Talb. In his cross-examination he stated that after 15/20 minutes making of Talb they left for said village. Sabir the other witness of the said first Talb had died before he could be examined. His death entry has also been produced in these cases.
6. The well-settled rule consistently laid by the superior judiciary in the matter of reading of evidence is that the entire evidence is to be read. Now applying the said rule the said mention of 2- 00 p.m. At one point in the course of testimony of the petitioner would not derogate from over all testimony of the witness which is in accord with duly pleaded facts in the plaint. In fact upon a proper reading of the said entire statement the said portion of the statement or said sentence picked up by both the learned Courts below is wholly out of context and either is slip of tongue or pen. I may refer here to the case of Abdul Qayuni v. Mushk-e-Alam and another 2001 SCM R 798. It was a pre-emption matter involving controversy regarding making of Talb. Their lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court referred to the evidence on the point in para.9 of the judgment. The discrepancy was that Talb-i-Muwathibat was stated to have been made at one place at "Degarwela" and at another place in the evening time. While one of the witnesses said that the notice was issued after 5 days whereas the other stated it was issued next day. Following observations of the Honourable Supreme Court are at page 494 of the report:-- "In our view, it was not a case of any discrepancy or contradiction in the evidence of these three witnesses as regards the time and place of making Talb-i-Muwathibat of issuance of notice in relation to Talb-i-Ishhad. The combined effect of reading the statements of these witnesses clearly was that Talb-iMuwathibat was made on 4-5-1991 on which date all the witnesses are unanimous.
As regards time whether it was made at Degarwela or in the evening, there may be minor variation that the same could not be treated to be contradiction of each other. The witnesses were making statements after lapse of considerable period from the date of Talb-i-Muwathibat, therefore, they were not expected to remember each every minor details as to time. These were natural variations which a human being in ordinary course of business would certainly make which do not in any way detract from the veracity of their evidence."
7. Having examined the evidence in the light of the said dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court I am inclined to hold that the learned Courts below have not read the evidence in the manner prescribed by the superior judiciary. The entire evidence, if properly read, goes to show that Talb-i- Muwathibat was made at the time stated in the plaint. I, therefore, reverse findings of the learned Courts below on the question of Talb.
8. So far as the said second contention of the learned counsel is concerned, I have examined the copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1992-93 (Exhs.P.9 and P.8) respectively and find that the petitioner lady is duly recorded as co-sharer in the suit lands. Apart from this Ali Nawaz respondent was duly confronted and he had admitted that the petitioner is co-sharer in the suit- land.
9. For all that has been discussed above, both these civil revisions are allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are set aside and the suits filed by the petitioner are decreed on terms stated below:--
(i) In the matter of Civil Revision No.2204 of 2000 the petitioner shall make a deposit of Rs.2,10,000 (This includes price and Rs.10,000 as incidental charges) in the trial Court on or before 10-7-2004.
(ii) In the matter of Civil Revision No.2205 of 2000 the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,775,000 (This includes price and Rs.27,500 as incidental charges) in the trial Court on or before 10-7-2004.
(iii) In case the petitioner fails to make the said deposits in any of the cases on or before the date mentioned above, after adjustment of amount, if any, already deposited, the suits shall stand dismissed with costs throughout.
' At the moment the parties are left to bear their own costs.