JUDGMENT JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.- This regular second appeal filed by Riasat s/o Jalla (appellant/defendant) impugns the decree of the Court of first appeal dated 26.1.1999, whereby the decree of the learned Trial Court dated 2.11.1995 was set aside and a suit filed by Mst. Bibi Rani (respondent/plaintiff) seeking declaration of title to the suit land, was decreed.
2. The facts of he case have been elaborately set out in the appellate judgment and need not, therefore, be reproduced in ex tenso.
3. The claim of the respondent/plaintiff was that a sale-deed (Ex.P-1 and Ex.D-1) dated 4.8.1987 purporting to convey title of the suit land to the appellant/defendant was a forgery and had never been signed by her. The defence of the appellant was that he had purchased the suit land through the aforesaid sale=deed for a total consideration of Rs.80,000/-
4. Based on the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 7 issues on which both parties led evidence. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff holding that the sale-deed (Ex.P-1/Ex.D- 1) had, in fact, been executed by the respondent/plaintiff. The learned Appellate Court has, however, reversed this finding.
5. In view of the fact that the judgments of the two Courts below are at variance, I have, with the assistance of both learned counsel, gone through the entire evidence myself. The appellant produced Rahmdtullah (DW-2), who was the marginal witness to the sale-deed (Ex.P-1). This witness claims to be related to the respondent/plaintiff, but she has denied that she knows him or that he js related to her. DW-2 is not a resident of the village and has admitted that he resides in Chichawatni. Although he asserts that he was resident of the village, he claims that he left it one year earlier but has not produced his identity card even though questioned, in order to show his prior residence in the village. Sher Muhammad Kharal, Advocate (DW-3) purportedly identified the respondent/plaintiff before the Sub- Registrar at the time of registration of the sale-deed. He admits that he does not know the respondent/plaintiff. He merely states that he had satisfied himself about the identity of the respondent by questioning Rahmatullah (DW-2). He admits that he did not see the identity card of the respondent/plaintiff. Likewise, Nisar Ahmad (DW-4), who is the scribe of the sale-deed, acknowledges that he does not know the respondent/plaintiff personally and that the lady, who came to him, had herself stated that she was Bibi Rani.
6. The above three witnesses produced by the appellant/defendant, thus, are not credible and have not given evidence sufficient to identify the respondent/plaintiff as the person who executed the sale-deed in question, In addition, even the Fingerprint Expert, who appeared as PW- 1, deposed that the two thumb-impressions appearing on the sale-deed did not match the thumb- impressions of the respondent/plaintiff appearing on the sample paper sent to the Finger Print Bureau for comparison.
7. The learned Appellate Court, after considering the above evidence, has concluded that the respondent/plaintiff had not executed the sale-deed (Ex.P- 1/Ex.D-l). I have come to the same conclusion. Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show the existence of any of the grounds mentioned in Section 100 C.P.C, which would justify interference in the impugned decree. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.