1. . versus , decided on .
2. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), ---S. 115---Specific. Relief Act, 1877, Ss. 8, 9---Suit for possession---Claim of respondent/plaintiff that the State land in question was allotted to his predecessor-in-interest under however , the predecessor-in-interest of th( plaintiff/respondent was granted rights under the Housin Scheme by the Provincial Government.
3. The case of th petitioner gravitates around a sale receipt according t which, consideration is Rs.
4. 60,000/- duly paid, to the plaintiff and property purchased. Exh. P-2 reflects that ownershi vests the Provincial Government, the possession wit respondent's father, under Provincial Government's Housin, Scheme. Therefore, the respondent could transfer rights after approval of the Provincial Government but could not sell the property. The receipt adverts to the transaction as sale, therefore, makes it highly doubtful. The petitioner adverts to the price (consideration) as Rs. 11,500/- as DW-1, in cross-examination, this is in contradiction with the price mentioned in the receipt (Exh.
5. D-1) (Rs. 60,0001-) and also stated by his witnesses, therefore, the receipt loses all sanctity and cannot be relied upon. Thus, there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment, therefore, this petition has no merits and is dismissed.
6. Civil Revision Pettion dismissed.