1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---The applicant has challenged the decree, dated 4-2-1990 passed by learned II Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur in IIIrd Class Suit No,78 of 1980 regarding Wazir v. Muhammad Qasim in a suit for Declaration, Cancellation and Permanent Injunction whereby decreed the above suit and the decree, dated 18-12-1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghotki in Civil Appeal No,18of 1990 regarding Qasim v. Wazir whereby the decree passed by the trial Court has been maintained and the appeal has been dismissed with costs.
2. ' Brief facts of the plaintiff/respondent's case are that he is owner of the house and .a plot situated in village Kaloo Buriro Taluka Ubauro District Sukkur measuring 880 Sq. Ft. The said house was a dismantled katcha Khata. The plaintiff/respondent due, to his poverty could not raise construction over the said plot. He sold the said plot to Abdul Majid son of Rasool Bux in the sum of Rs.1000 and in this regard an agreement, dated 11-3-1974 was executed whereby the sale price was acknowledged by the plaintiff/respondent and he agreed to mutate the Khata on demand. Until the suit plot could be converted by said Rasool Bux Buriro to his own use the defendant/appellant approached respondent to rescind the agreement and told him that he can arrange a loan for the plaintiff from HBFC and the said plot could be utilize by him. On such assurance the plaintiff revoked the agreement of sale with Rasool Bux and after returning the sale price he obtained back the original sale agreement. Applicant/Defendant fraudulently got registered a power of attorney from the plaintiff/respondent on keeping him false hopes that he will get allowed his loan from HBFC and prepared such document and also got it registered from Sub-Registrar as the plaintiff/respondent was, illiterate person and could not understand the typed language and he put his signature over it and admitted the same to be his signature before the Sub-Registrar and the Sub-Registrar also did not read over the contents of the sale-deed and only confirmed from the plaintiff/respondent that he put his signature thereon and also the said documents were got registered by the applicant/defendant. The plaintiff/respondent had also a trust over the defendant/applicant being a co-villager and related to him and thereafter the plaintiff/respondent raised constructions over the said plot and built a house from his sources and is residing with his family, members. After came to the knowledge that it was a sale-deed, the plaintiff/respondent filed the suit with the prayer to cancel the same as it was obtained through fraud and the plaintiff/respondent is in peaceful possession of the suit plot. The applicant has filed Written Statement in which apart from taking legal pleas has submitted that he is owner of the suit property as the applicant with his own free will had executed registered sale-deed in favor of the applicant on 5-4-1975 and in further pleas the applicant has narrated the story which has nothing to do with the merits of this case. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court and against which Civil Appeal was filed by the Applicant/Defendant in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ghotki.
3. Judgment and decree, dated 31-1-1990 and 4-2-1990 respectively passed, by the learned IInd Senior Civil Judge Sukkur was accordingly maintained and appeal wasdismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 12-9-1993 and 18-12-1993respectively. Against that judgment and decree the defendant/applicant has filed this Revision before this Court.
4. ' Mr. Abdul Qadir Shaikh learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the judgments of the two Courts below are against the fact and law, the evidence produced by the applicant has not been considered and appreciated in its true perspective and that the evidence available on record has been stretched in favor of respondent, he further submits that the applicant has admitted the execution of documents and the same is sufficient to dismiss the suit of the Applicant.
5. ' On the other hand Mr. Parya Ram learned counsel for the respondents has fully supported the judgments and submits that both the Courts below have passed the judgments after properly appreciating the evidence on record and that the judgments do not suffer from any infirmity and the learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any perversity in the judgments.
6. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available before me.
7. ' In the judgment learned trial Court has held that the applicant has pleaded that the registered sale-deed was executed by the respondent therefore, the burden lies upon him to prove the same.
8. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence has held that it is an admitted fact that the respondent is in possession of suit property and is an uneducated person. The trial Court further held that the plaintiff is still in possession of the suit property show that in fact no sale transaction in respect of suit property had taken place between the parties. The above conclusion found support from the evidence available On record. The Applicant has failed to justify and prove that after sale the respondent is in possession of the suit property with his permission. The sale-deed was allegedly executed in the year, 1975 and the respondent was in possession of the suit property till the filing of the suit which in absence of any proof that the respondent is in possession of the same with the permission of the applicant is sufficient to hold that no sale of property took place between the parties.
9. ' The learned appellate Court has also properly discussed the evidence and has rightly maintained the judgment of the trial Court.
10. ' The High Court in the revisional jurisdiction can interfere with a concurrent finding of fact where an error of jurisdiction is apparent, or an illegality and irregularity is found in the proceedings of the Court. The revisional Court cannot interfere with a concurrent finding of fact based on evidence on the ground that appreciation of evidence was not proper. The finding of facts recorded by the two Courts below is neitherarbitrary nor perverse nor capricious. The learned counsel for the applicant has also failed to point out any jurisdictional error in the judgments.
11. ' I have perused the judgment and found that both the Courts below have applied their mind to the factual and legal aspect of the matter, given cogent reasons in support of their decisions and have properly read the evidence available on record. No material misreading and non-reading of evidence was pointed out during the hearing. Reappraisal of evidence is not permissible nor can any conclusion drawn by Courts below be upset merely because an opposite view is also feasible.
12. ' In view of the above I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the lower Courts. The revision is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.