MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff filed a declaratory suit against 5 defendants. Respondents Nos.1 to 10 are stated to be legal heirs of deceased Zia Ullah defendant No.1. Respondents Nos.l1 and 12 were defendants Nos.2 and 3 while respondents Nos.13 and 14 were defendants Nos.4 and 5 in the original suit. Through the suit petitioner sought a declaration to the effect that registered sale-deed bearing No.2414 registered on 12-11-1983 through which land in dispute was allegedly transferred by the petitioner and her mother Ameer Bibi in favour of defendant No.1 Zia Ullah was illegal and contrary to law. Possession of the land in dispute was also prayed for as a consequential relief.
2. According to pleadings, it was submitted that Zia Ullah defendant No.1 had taken Mst. Ameer Bibi and the plaintiff to Kharian on the pretext that he will get Mst. Ameer Bibi treated and in that connection got their thumb impressions on some papers which later on, proved to be the disputed sale deed.
3. Defendants Nos.2 and 3 (presently respondents Nos.11 and 12) were marginal witnesses of the sale-deed. Defendants Nos.4 and 5, now respondents Nos.13 and 14, are real brother and sister of the petitioner/plaintiff. All the five, defendants jointly filed their written statement on 26-5-1984 in which all of them confirmed the factum of sale not only by the petitioner but also by Mst. Ameer Bibi mother of the petitioner and defendants Nos.4 and 5.
4. After recording evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court Vide judgment and decree, dated 19-6-1991 decreed the suit, which was assailed by the legal heirs of deceased Zia Ullah who during the trial had already passed away. This appeal was contested by the petitioner, however, the same was allowed vide judgment and decree, dated 17-6-2000. The same is being assailed through the instant civil revision.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to 1998 SCMR 1354 and PLD 1998 Pesh. 11 that once the petitioner entered in the witness-box and stated that she was defrauded by the beneficiary of the sale deed, the entire onus shifted on the respondent beneficiary to prove the execution, registration, payment of sale consideration etc. Without any shadow of doubt. It is argued that the respondents have failed to produce reliable evidence in order to discharge their onus. The petitioner is a "Pardah Nasheen" lady and was not having any independent advice as well, therefore, the sale deed was a result of fraud.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that petitioner's real brother and sister i,e, defendants Nos.4 and 5, who could also be beneficiaries of the cancellation of sale deed, at least to the extent of Mst. Ameer Bibi their mother but they have categorically admitted the fact of sale in their joint written statement with Zia Ullah defendant No.1. It is further submitted that there were only two marginal witnesses out of which one Muhammad Afzal had appeared as D.W.1, who happens to be the real brother of defendant No.1 Zia Ullah, however, with regard to Raja Muhammad Azam Lumberdar the second marginal witness it is stated that he was not available in Pakistan and was thus could not be produced. Statement of D.W.3 Ashiq Ali clearly proves that bargain was stuck at the residence, where a sum of Rs,10,000 as earnest money was paid in. His presence. While D.W.1 confirms the payment of balance of Rs,5,000 before the Sub Registrar. It is further argued that a registered document cannot be lightly ignored. It carries much higher status than an ordinary document. It is also submitted that petitioner herself destroyed her case of fraud by pleading the fact that some thumb impressions were obtained by Zia Ullah beneficiary, which were used by him to create the disputed document on the one hand and while appearing as P.W.3 categorically denied the fact of putting any thumb impression on any document.
7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. Although petitioner did not claim herself to be a "Pardah" observing lady nor she claimed that she had no independent advice of any male member of her family. However, even if, it is so, the fact of fraud as pleaded by her was that some documents were got thumb marked by Zia Ullah from the petitioner and her deceased mother which were used as present disputed sale deed. This fact of fraud was totally destroyed by .Her in her own examination in chief when she stated that she never put any thumb impressions on any document. It is also to be noted that in the joint written statement filed by defendants including real brother and sister of the petitioner had categorically admitted and confirmed the fact of sale by the petitioner and their mother Mst. Ameer Bibi in favour of Zia Ullah defendant No.1. The only male member of the petitioner's family was Akhtar Shah defendant No.4 who has categorically denied the claim of the present petitioner.
9. It is also to be observed that complete onus of proving the execution, contents and registration of the sale deed in such circumstances cannot be shifted to the respondents, when the very basis of the alleged fraud could not be discharged by the petitioner herself. However, still there is enough material on record in the shape of statement of Muhammad Afzal D.W.1 who confirmed the payment of Rs,5,000 before the Registrar and having attested the document Exh.P.1 read with the statement of D.W.3, who was the witness of the bargain and payment of Rs,10,000 as earnest money. In view of these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court. This petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.