This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5-7-2005, passed by learned Judge Banking Court No.1, Lahore, whereby, objection petition, brought by appellant, was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that respondent No.1 (Trust Leasing Corporation Limited) brought a suit for recovery of Rs.2,35,10,720 and the same was decreed against respondents Nos.2 to 5 vide judgment dated 26-7-1999. The property owned by respondent No.4 (Mrs. Nasreen Aftab) was attached before the decision of the case and, later on, respondent No.1 purchased the same with permission of court. However, appellant filed objection petition on the ground that Mrs. Nasreen Aftab, respondent No.4 was not owner of property in Question (No.59, Bank Road, Murree). The respondent contested the objection petition, whereupon, learned trial court framed following issues:-- (1)' "Whether objector Shahid Hamad Hussain is owner of land measuring 5- Kanal, 4-Marla in Property No.59 Koh Muree District Rawalpindi keeping in view of the version as mentioned in the objection petition?
(2) If Issue No.1 is approved in affirmative, whether land measuring 2-Kanal in the ownership of objector Shahid Hamad Hussain or any portion of his land was attached by this court and was sold as a result of public auction? O.P. Objector.
(3) If Issues Nos.1 and 2 are not answered in affirmative whether the decree-holder is entitled for compensation as provided in section 19(7) of the Ordinance, 2001?
(4) Relief'?
The parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims and after hearing the parties, learned Executing Court dismissed the objection petition brought by appellant vide judgment dated 5-7- 2005. Hence this EFA.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. As mentioned above, suit brought by respondent No.1 for recovery of Rs.2,35,10,720 was decreed on 26-7-1999. However, Property bearing No.59 Bank Road, Murree was attached before the judgment/decree and, later on, during executing proceedings the same was auctioned which was purchased by decree-holder/respondent No.1 with permission of the Court. Shahid Hamid Hassan filed objection petition on the ground that he is owner of property in question (59 Bank Road, Murree). His objection petition was dismissed on *the ground that he had relied upon forged documents. The case of the appellant is that he along with Mrs. Nasreen Aftab, respondent No.4, purchased house in question vide registered sale deed dated 30-9-1970. According to the case of appellant suit property is measuring about 7 Kanals and 5 Marlas. However, the case of respondent/decree-holder is that name of appellant has been mentioned in sale-deed through forgery and interpolation and that according to sale-deed plot in question measures 0.627 acre.
Also that copy of Record of Rights (Register Haqdaran-e-Zameen) produced by appellant before the Executing Court, is a forged document.
5. We have perused the record and find that the appellant has failed to produce any worthwhile evidence in support of his case. Learned Executing Court also found that name of appellant has been inserted in the sale deed later on. The relevant record shows that property in question was purchased only by Mrs. Nasreen Aftab, respondent No.4/judgment-debtor. It is in evidence that entries of the record have been changed after rubbing the original writing. Paras Nos.5, 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment read as under:- "5. In rebuttal the decree-holder examined R.W.1, Imtiaz Ahmed, Patwari who maintained that the documents placed on record Marks "E" and "F" were not issued by him. He never signed them. The entries as made out in the Mark "F" were not available in his record. R.W.2, Khalid Masood, Tehsildar deposed that as per record the document Marks "E" and "F" were not issued by his department nor bore signatures of the present Patwari. He asserted that the entries available on Marks "E" and "F" were not in accordance with the record. Furthermore, he asserted that he conducted an inquiry and as per report Exh. RW.2/1 the entries incorporated in Fard Mark "F" were against the record. He observed that no record is made about registered sale-deed in such documents. R.W.3 Babar Hayat, Record-Keeper Excise and Taxation Office, Murree submitted copy of file Exh.R.W.3/1. According to his record the area of the property was 5- Kanals. R.W.4 Abdul Aziz Khan, Chief Manager, Trust Leasing Corporation appeared as witness of the decree-holder and tendered his affidavit in lieu of the examination-in-chief wherein he deposed that the Property No.59-Bank Road, Murree was owned and possessed by one of the judgment- debtors namely Mst. Nasreen Aftab which was attached by this court in execution petition. The court auctioneers were appointed and with the permission of this court, the decree-holder participated in the auction proceedings and purchased the property for a sum of Rs.11,000,00. It was asserted that the objector Shahid Hamid Hussain has no concern with the Property No.59- Bank Raod, Murree. It was alleged that Shahid Hamid Hussain had filed the objection petition on the basis of forged and fictitious documents containing incorrect contents and description. He maintained that the suit property was purchased from Malik Atta Muhammad vide sale-deed.
Dated 30-9-1970. Attested copy of the same was placed on file as Exh.R.W.4/2. The attested copy of the Sub-Registrar Exh.A.W.4/2. It was maintained that the decree-holder had got verified the ownership of the said property from the concerned department i.e. Murree Improvement Trust which is custodian of the record and got it confirmed that this property belonged to Mst. Nasreen Aftab who had applied to the department for the transfer of ownership in her name. She had submitted an application with the copy of the sale-deed showing exclusive ownership in respect of Property No.59-Bank Road, Murree and since then it is in the name of said Mst. Nasreen Aftab.
Furthermore this fact was got verified from the Excise and Taxation Department. It was pointed out that Mst. Nasreen Aftab had been appearing in the suit as well as in the execution petition and filed a number of miscellaneous applications/objection petitions and never this point was agitated by her that Shahid Hamid Hussain real nephew was the co-sharer in the property. It was alleged that the said Shahid Harnid Hussain intentionally, wilfully and in collusion with Mst. Nasreen Aftab filed the objection petition on the basis of the forged, fabricated and fictitious documents with the mala fide intention to frustrate execution of the decree.
11. Now coming to document Exh.A.W.3/1, as pointed out that there are apparently some interpolation and over-writing, and replacement. R.W.3 Babar Hayat, Record-Keeper, Excise and Taxation Department tendered in evidence the copies of the record of his department which included the photocopy of the sale-deed submitted by Mst. Nasreen Aftab. Abdul Aziz R.W. 4 placed on file hand-written copy of the sale-deed executed in favour of Mst. Nasreen Aftab about property in dispute. The objector has placed on file the extract from registration of record about sale-deed i.e. Ex.A.W.4/1. Comparison of all these documents and keeping them in juxtaposition there are some glaring contradictions and interpolation. At page 5 of Exh.A.W.3 apparently there is some rubbing. On the back of page 9 there is some rubbing and visibly it seems that this paper has been replaced in Exh.A.W.4/1. Though at number of place word but at page 3 of this document the word {{URDU TEXT}} is mentioned.
12. Above all there is a site-plan drawn on the last page of the Exh.A.W.3/1 which signifies that the plot in dispute measured 7-Kanals and 5 Marlas out of which. 5-Kanals and 4-Marlas is owned by Shahid Hamid Hussain and 2-Kanals and 1-Marla is owned by Mst. Nasreen Aftab. Thus the total area of the plot comes to 7-Kanals and 5-Marlas. According. To this document (Exh.A.W.3/1) the total area of the plot is 0.627 Acre which comes to bit more than 5-Kanals. The dimension of the plot has been given as North 100, South 150, East 93 feet and West 210 feet and the assessed area of plot from this dimension comes to a little more than 5-Kanals. In the Extract Exh.AW.4/1 same has been copied and it has been written that the plot in ownership of Mst. Nasreen Aftab is West 110 feet and on the East 93 feet. In the document Exh.AW3/1 it is narrated that the entire dimension of the plot on the ascertained side. Is 93 feet. This belied the claim of the objector. Likewise, in the plan the dimension on the North 116 feet whereas in the document itself it is 100 feet. The learned counsel for the objector could not satisfy me about discrepancies in the area. Particularly, so when the erstwhile owner Atta Muhammad Khan Noon had purchased the property measuring 0.5 Acre vide agreements dated 30-5-1957 Exh.RW.2 and 0.127 dated 17th September, 1963 Exh.RW.3"
It is well-reasoned judgment. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. In these circumstances, we find that learned Executing Court has rightly decided Issues Nos.1 to 3 and findings of learned executing court on all these issues are affirmed. The record shows that Mrs. Nasreen Aftab, respondent No.4, is aunt of appellant. As stated earlier, she has not paid decretdl amount so far and it seems that this appeal has been filed only to avoid payment of decretal amount.
6. For what has been discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed.