1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- This revision petition is directed against the judgment/decree, dated 14-10- 2002, passed by District Judge Skardu, vide which the learned Judge remanded the case to the Civil Judge for de novo trial, by accepting the appeal.
2. ' The brief facts giving rise to the present case, as stated in the plaint are that, the petitioners possess the disputed land as legal heirs of their grandfather and his brother Ghulam Muhammad, as the disputed land including the other immovable property was gifted to them by Mst. Bano, the owner of the property, through the gift deed Exh.P.4 dated 5-6-1987. During the year 1961 defendant No,3 Ghulam Ali was posted as Patwari at Mouza Hoto. He by misusing his official powers, mutated the disputed property in the name of his elder brother, defendant No,
1. The defendant No,1, again mutated the property in the name of his son defendant No,2 in the year, 1987 and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the disputed land through revenue authorities, failing which, the defendants followed to dispossess the plaintiffs illegally, by use of force, hence the plaintiff filed the suit to invoke the aid of law.
3. ' The Civil Judge after thorough trial decreed the suit as prayed for and lastly remanded by this Court vide judgment dated 24-5-2000, to District Judge and the District Judge accepted the appeal vide order, dated 14-10-2002, against which this revision petition has been filed.
4. ' I heard both the counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following points to impugn the judgment/decree passed by the learned District Judge:--
(a) That the land in dispute was gifted to the grandfather of the petitioners and his brother Ghulam Muhammad by Mst. Bano, owner of the disputed land in the year 1335 Hijri. The written Hibba Nama is Exh.P.4. The petitioners are in possession of the disputed land uninterrupted and in continuation of the possession over the disputed land from their forefathers. The learned District Judge has totally ignored this aspect of the case and has passed the impugned order on some fanciful grounds.
(b) That the respondents have tried to eject the petitioners from the possession of the disputed land through Revenue Authorities but the Revenue Authorities came to understand the forgery in the Revenue Record made by the brother of the respondent No,1 who was Halqa Patwari of the area, where the disputed land is situated, hence the Revenue Authorities gave their verdict in favour of the petitioners by rejecting the claim of the respondents. The verdict of the Revenue Authorities is attached with the plaint. The learned 1st Appellate Court has entirely ignored the documentary evidence available on the record.
(c) That the sale-deed, registered dated 25-3-1961 in the name of respondent No,1, pertaining to the disputed land by Mst. Jano, as well as Mutation No,441 apparently seems to be concocted and forged for the reason that the sale-deed has been registered on 24-7-1961 while the Mutation No,441 has been inserted and attested on 9-7-1961 in anticipation of the sale-deed but the learned District Judge has ignored this act of forgery and concoction made by the respondents and has set aside the judgment/decree passed by the learned Civil Judge on some flimsy grounds. At the other end the learned counsel for the respondents rebutted all the above points, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and urged that:---
(i) The gift-deed is forged and self-creative of the petitioners for the reasons that gift-deed is neither written on stamp paper nor it has been registered. Furthermore no marginal witness of the said gift-deed has been produced before the Court as witness. Therefore, the deed is inadmissible in the eye of law.
(ii) that the sale-deed dated 24-7-1961 in the name of the respondent No,1 is registered which is admissible as an unrebutted proof of the ownership of the respondents in respect of the disputed land as such the respondents have proved their ownership to the disputed land but the learned trial Court has based his judgment/decree on conjectures.
(iii) That the petitioners are in possession of the disputed land as tenants which fact has been proved from the Revenue Record as such the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the eye of law.
(iv) That the learned Civil Judge has not discussed each and every issue as such the same is reversible, hence the learned District Judge has very properly remanded the case to the learned Civil Judge to give his findings on each and every issue, hence this revision of the petitioner is not tenable.
5. ' I consider the points raised by both the learned counsel for the parties and stepped into the conclusion that the impugned judgment/ decree passed by the learned District Judge is not tenable for the reasons that; (a) the case of the petitioners as well as the respondents is entirely based on documentary evidence but the learned District Judge has not even discussed the documentary evidence filed by both the parties; (b) that the gift-deed (written in Persian) produced by the plaintiffs/ petitioners is admittedly a document of more than 30 years old as such under Article 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, presumption of truth goes to the contents of the document and under the said Article, it need not to produce any marginal witness to prove the same, (c) that the registered sale-deed in the name of respondent No,1 if for arguments sake, considered to be true, then too, the same is void ab into for the reason that Mst. Jano was not owner of the disputed land as, she had already gifted the disputed property to the forefather of the plaintiffs and his brother Ghulam Muhammad through gift-deed in the year 1335 Hijri as such she was not owner of the disputed land and could not transfer the same through sale-deed or otherwise: Furthermore, the Mutation No,441 seems to be in anticipation of the sale-deed, which makes the sale-deed as well as Mutation No,441 doubtful. Particularly when it is admitted that brother of the respondent No,1 was Halqa Patwari of the said area when the Mutation No,441 was attested in the name of the respondent No,l.
6. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned District Judge is set aside and the judgment/decree passed by the Civil Judge is upheld although not altogether on the same grounds. No order as to costs.