' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---The precise relevant facts leading to the filing of instant civil revision are, that Jafar Khan plaintiff instituted suit against Mst. Anwar Sultan and others, defendants, seeking a declaration to the effect that plaintiff was owner in possession of suit house, detailed in the plaint and deed, dated 29-12-1977 was illegal, forged, fictitious and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff. A prayer for possession of suit house was also made in case the plaintiff was not found in possession of the same. The plaintiff further prayed for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants to transfer or alienate the house in question in any manner. It Was averred in the plaint that suit house was allotted to the plaintiff on account of being affecttee of Tarbela Dam Project; that the house was mortgaged in favor of one Fazal Qadir son of Baruddin resident of Topi, Swabi for Rs,25,000 on the basis of unregistered mortgage deed, dated 9-9-1988; that the same was got redeemed on payment of mortgaged amount and that defendant No,1 taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff from the village, took forcible possession of the house in dispute and started residing there.
2. The defendants filed written statement denying and controverting the contents of the plaint. It was pleaded that plaintiff had given the suit house to his son late Jehnazeb, husband of Mst. Anwar Sultan defendant No,1, as gift on the basis of deed, dated 29-12-1977. And Jehanzeb transferred the same in favor Of defendant. No,1 against dower.
3. After recording such evidence as the parties wished to adduce, in support of their respective stances, learned Civil Judge, Swabi, seized of the matter, proceeded to hold that plaintiff has not been able to substantiate his claim. Resultantly, suit was dismissed by judgment and decree, dated 27-6-2006. An appeal was preferred thereagainst, which was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Swabi, by judgment,dated 27-11-2006. The judgment and decree of trial Court was set aside and suit was decreed.
4. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved thereby, have filed instant civil revision, which is before me for consideration.
5. I have heard Khanzada Ajmal Zeb, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Rahim Muhammad, Advocate for the respondent. I have also perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Learned counsel for the parties confined their arguments to the findings returned on issues Nos.
5 and 6, which are to. The following effect:--
(5) Whether the plaintiff has transferred the suit property on the basis of unregistered deed, dated 29-12-1977, if so, its effect?
(6) Whether the unregistered deed, dated 9-9-1988 is forced, fictitious and inadmissible in evidence?
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that impugned judgment and decree of the appellant Court is contrary to the evidence on record; that appellate Court has not exercised the jurisdiction in accordance with law; that trial Court has discussed issues Nos. 5 and 6 in detail and has given full consideration to the material on record and correctly found the same in favor of the petitioners and that appellate Court had no justification to take contrary view of the matter and reverse the findings arrived at by the trial. Court. Additionally, he urged that the admitted and disputed signatures of the respondent should have been sent to the hand writing expert for comparison and opinion in order to resolve the controversy conclusively and effectively and omission on the part of the Court to do so has resulted in manifest injustice.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, refuted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the impugned judgment whole heartedly. To supplement the contentions, reliance was placed on the following authorities:-- Ihsan Elahi v. Abdul Sattar (1993 CLC 1243) and Muhammad Imran V. Said Akbar through his legal heirs 1997 M LD 754.
9. The parties are closely related to each other. Mst. Anwar Sultan petitioner No,1, is the widow of late Jehanzeb Khan son of Jafar Khan respondent.. Petitioners 2 to 7 are sons and daughter respectively of late Jehanzeb. The dispute relates to a house constructed on an area measuring 10 marlas, situate in the area of Moza Bara Hamlet, Tehsil and District Swabi. The case of the respondent is that suit house wasallotted to him, being affectee of Tarbela Dam Project. He mortgaged the same in favor of one Fazal Qadir son of Baruddin, resident of Topi in consideration of R8.25,000 on the basis of un-registered mortgage deed, dated 9-9-1988. To prove the claim, respondent Jafar Khan appeared in the witness box as P.W.4 and he produced Syed Rahim Shah, Stamp Vendor, as P.W.1 and Ali Akbar and Tawas Khan as P.W.2 and P.W.3. As against that, Mst.
Anwar Sultan was examined as D.W.1 and she produced Hakim. Khan and Muhammad Nawaz and D.W.2 and D.W.3 respectively.
10. Having considered the matter from all angles, in the light of arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the evidence on the file, I am of the view that sufficient evidence has been brought on the record to substantiate the claim of the respondent. The mortgage deed, dated 9-9-1988, has been satisfactorily proved through positive and cogent evidence. There is nothing in rebuttal to indicate, even remotely, that respondent had transferred the house in question in favor of his son Jehanzeb Khan as gift and the same was given to petitioner No,1 in lieu of dower. Even otherwise the allotment of house and subsequent mortgage has not been seriously disputed. The learned appellate Court has given valid and cogent reasons for disagreeing with learned trial Court and forming a different opinion. The mere assertion of learned counsel for the petitioners that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the appellate Court in its true perspective, without a positive attempt on his part, to substantiate the same, is of no consequence. Despite having been asked repeatedly to point out the evidence, which was misread or non-read by the appellate Court, learned counsel remained unable to do so. The objection of learned counsel for the petitioners regarding omission on the part of the appellate Court to send the admitted and disputed signatures/thumb impressions of the respondent to the hand writing hand expert for comparison and opinion, is equally without substance. The omission on the part of the Court to do so, does not appear to have caused prejudice to the interest of the petitioners. It is settled principle that in certain eventualities Court enjoins the powers to itself compare the signature along with other relevant matters to effectively resolve the main controversy. Messrs Waqas Enterprises and others v. Allied 'Bank of Pakistan and 2 others (1999 SCM R 85).
' Pursuant to above, finding no substance in this civil revision, I dismiss the same with no order as to costs and maintain the impugned judgment, dated 27-11-2006.