' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Mst. Zohra Begum and others have been granted leave to appeal from the judgment and decree dated 11-3-2002 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, whereby, a Civil Revision filed by the appellants against the concurrent findings of two Courts below, was dismissed on 11-3-2002 (wrongly described as 7-3-2002 in the instant appeal).
2. One Taj Din, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants, on 9-5-1979 filed a suit claiming that he was owner of 254 Kanals, 14 Marlas of land in dispute. According to plaint, the property aforesaid belonged to one Dittu son of Muhammad, confirmed against his verified claim.
That the said Dittu, on the basis of a powerof-attorney dated 5-6-1962, registered on 6-6-1962, appointed one Ahmad Din son of Lashkar as his general attorney. The general attorney entered into an agreement to sell on receipt of Rs,3,000 as the entire amount of consideration, with a promise that he would execute a sale-deed within one month and get it registered in favour of Taj Din or his nominee.
3. That, as Taj Din was an employee, of the District Board and as it was uncertain as to whether he could legally purchase the property in his name, he, by way of abundant caution, decided to purchase the land in the name of Muhammad Ismail, the respondent as Benami transaction because the latter being his brother-in-law was then a trusted man. Thus a sale-deed was got executed in the name of Muhammad Ismail on 19-11-1962. That, since then Taj Din exercised all proprietary rights, like, developing the barren land with his own money adjusting the same during consolidation proceedings, getting electric connection for and installation of tube-well at his own expense, inducting one Bagh Ali as tenant on a portion of property and giving the other portion to his sort' Zahoor Nasir. That after some time and during some marriage proposal,Muhammad Ismail respondent refused to give the hand of his daughter in marriage to a son of Taj Din, whereupon, the relationship got estranged. Muhammad Ismail started claiming to be the real owner. Taj Din sued Muhammad Ismail dubbing him as Benamidar.
4. Muhammad Ismail, in his written statement denied all the allegations. He claimed to have purchased the land himself for Rs,3,000 paid to one Ahmad Din, a general attorney of Dittu, the real owner. That he installed electric connection and sunk a tube-well for which he in his name obtained loan from Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan mortgaging his personal property thereagainst. It was he who redeemed such land. That the land being an evacuee property, litigation was going on thereabout in which he spent huge amount from this pocket. That Taj Din was a mere dispenser in the District Council receiving Rs,200 per month as salary on which he had to support his family of five children. That he had no means to pay such huge sum in the year 1962 to purchase the property. That proceedings under section 188, P.P.C. Were pending against the tenant and that Zahoor Nasir, the son of the plaintiff was never in possession.
5. After the frame of issues and the recording of evidence of the parties, the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 6-6-1988 dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned District Judge Lahore vide judgment and decree dated 18-9-1989, maintained the judgment of the Trial Court. A civil revision filed by the present appellants was earlier dismissed on 3-11-1994 but it was remanded by this Court on 24-6-1997 in Civil Appeal No,258 of 1995. After remand and following directions therein, the revision petition again stood dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 11-3- 2002 and hence this appeal after leave of the Court.
6. The first and foremost objection of Mst. Zohra Begum etc. The legal heirs of Taj Din, before the High Court was that the learned Senior Civil Judge had announced the judgment on 6-6-1988 without writing the same and had thus violated the emphatic provisions of Order XX, rule 1, C.P.C.
The learned Judge of High Court has discussed this matter in complete detail from Paras.2 to 9 of the judgment. A complaint was lodged to the same effect before the Chief justice Lahore High Court whereupon the District Judge had held an inquiry and had come to the conclusion that the Trial Judge had recorded the judgment with pencil in his own hands comprising 33 pages and it was impossible that such a judgment could be written in 45 minutes and that too while the Senior Civil Judge was in bathroom, as alleged. All the allegations were held by the District Judge to be false. After having gone through the elaborate discussion on the above points from paras.2 to 9 of the impugned judgment, neither we could find any reasons to disagree, nor the appellants could come out with any reasonable or plausible argument concerning a pure question of fact.
7. This Court in case of Samiul Haq 2001 SCM R 1053 and with reference to Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C, applicable to the Appellate Court, which is in pari materia with Order XX, rule 1, C.P.C, applicable to the Trial Court, has held that if the judgment contains all the allegations and counter-allegations with elaborate discussion on each of the points raised, it is not rendered void merely because it was written after announcement. In the instant case as well, the judgment of the Trial Court is quite elaborate with discussion on each and every issue. The same was upheld by the appellate Court on all the issues. The alleged irregularity, not otherwise proved on record, might for argument sake be an irregularity but not an illegality rendering the judgment void in the instant case.
8. Before, that a sale could be declared as Benami, this Court in case of Muhammad Sajid Hussain 1991 SCM R 703, had laid down a criteria whereby, four factual aspects are to be taken into consideration. Leaned High Court also took notice of it as follow:--- "(i) Source of consideration.
(ii) From whose custody the original title deed and other documents came in evidence.
(iii) Who is in possession of the suit property; and
(iv) Motive for the Benami transaction".
9. We would rather add that, being a question of fact, it could command multifarious aspects in addition of the four mentioned above and thus the Court must take notice of all the circumstances occurring in each case.
10. Seen in the light of the above considerations, in the instant case, all the title deeds of the property have come on record from the custody of respondent and not the appellants. It is also proved on record that there is material contradiction about the amount of consideration and the mode and manner of payment thereof. The payment is also proved to have been made by the respondent vide document Exh.D.1. It is also proved on record that the respondent had installed tube-well and for such purpose had obtained a loan from Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan vide Exh.D.13. A loan of a sum of Rs,4,600 was obtained by respondent against which a property in the shape of a shop located in Lahore belonging to the respondent was mortgaged.
Exh.D.14 is an acknowledgement by the Bank that the amount of loan has been paid and the documents of mortgage stood released.
11. The electric connection, as admitted by the plaintiffs witness (P.W.-7), was in the name of respondent. Pre-consolidation and post-consolidation record of the land in the shape of Misal-e- Haqiat Ishtimal (Exh.D.16) indicate the respondent to be in possession. Bagh Ali is a tenant paying half Batai to Muhammad Ismail respondent. So far as the alleged possession of Zahoor Nasir as tenant is concerned, it is admittedly in dispute and the matter is pending before the Criminal Court.
12. A settlement dispute had also arisen qua the suit property, contested by the respondent (pages 9 to 13 of paper book-II). It went up to the High Court in Settlement Revision No,62 of 1972 where it was held that Muhammad Ismail was a bona fide purchaser for value on the basis of public record and was entitled to the protection of his rights (pages 4 to 6 of paper book-II).
13. Exh.D.2 to Exh.D.11,coming from the custody of respondent are indicative of the fact that respondent has been paying the land revenue. Coming to the mutation for Benami transaction, it was alleged by the plaintiffs and also by his son (P.W.7) that the land was mutated in the name of respondent because Taj Din being a Government employee could not make the purchase in question. This motive was satisfactorily rebutted by the respondent with the reasons that Benami transaction is absolutely concocted because vide sale-deed Exh.D.12 dated 3-1-1963, registered on the same day, Taj Din had purchased an area measuring 617 Kanals 7 Marlas in the name of his minor sons. Had the excuse of being a Government servant been genuine, it was equally applicable to such second transaction in favour of the minor sons of the plaintiff.
14.. Why the respondent allegedly happened to claim title to the suit-land, the plaintiff was of the view that Muhammad Ismail had refused to give the hand of his daughter to a son of the plaintiff (Mr. Zahoor Nasir) and thereby the relations estranged. Contrary to the above assertions, it is mentioned in para.3 of the civil revision that it was Taj Din who did not agree to the proposal aforesaid. This factual aspect of the case is rendered contradictory by the appellants themselves.
15. For what has been discussed above, we have failed to find a single reason to disagree with the elaborate and exhaustive judgment of the learned High Court. Even otherwise, the concurrent findings of three Courts are perfectly in accord with the material on record. The appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.