1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- Through the instant revision petition, the petitioners seek for setting, the concurrent decrees dated 27-5-2002 passed by learned District Judge, Skardu and dated 5-8- 1998, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Skardu aside.
2. 'The facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are as such that, the present petitioners, filed Snit No,50 of 1997 against the present respondents with the contention that, the land under the suit was owned by the father of the plaintiffs/petitioners, who was residing in Kharmong Sub-Division and the disputed land was under physical possession of respondents/defendants Nos.4 to 11 as tenants, who used to pay Lagan to father of plaintiffs, but because of cordial relations, father of the A plaintiffs/petitioners attorned the Lagan to father of the defendants/ respondents Nos.1 to 3, but the father of the defendants/respondents Nos.1 to 3 fraudulently got mutated the disputed land in his name and the Mutation N0.717 was attested in his name, but in absentia and without knowledge of the father of the plaintiffs.
3. ' The defendants/respondents Nos.1 to 3 defended the suit by filing their written statement, whereby they admitted the initial ownership of the father of the plaintiffs over the disputed land, but pleaded that the disputed land was given in ownership of the grandfather of the defendants Nos.1 to 3 by the grandfather of the plaintiffs and since that time the ownership of the disputed land rests with the defendants Nos.1 to 3 and they have been collecting the Lagan from the tenants (defendants Nos.7 to 9) since the time of their forefathers upto the year 1995. The defendants Nos.1 to 3 relied on documents Exh.D.1 to Exh.D.3 to prove transfer of ownership over the disputed land from the plaintiffs to the ancestors of defendants Nos.1 to 3.
4. ' The learned trial Judge probed into the dispute between the parties and proceeded the suit, framing as many as 14 issues. The parties led evidence in proof and rebuttal of the issues and finally, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit, after hearing the parties. The present petitioners being dissatisfied from the dismissal order/decree, assailed the same before the learned District Judge, Skardu, in 1st appeal but the appeal also got the same fate, hence, revision petition before this Court against the concurrent findings of both the lower Courts.
5. ' I heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel tried to establish the revision petition on the following grounds:--
(a) That, both the learned lower Courts failed to understand the documentary evidence as well as the oral and also failed to appreciate, the law involved in the case.
(b) That both the lower Courts committed glaring mistake by not taking judicial notice of the fraudulent act of the father of the defendants Nos.1 to 3 in attestation of the Mutation No,717 with the collusion of Revenue Authorities.
(c) That both the Courts below have based the impugned judgments on Exh.D.1, an agreement deed merely for being it of 30 years old without going into its merits, proof and value of the same, therefore, the document has been misinterpreted.
(d) That the possession of the suit-land rests with the defendants in permissive possession and this important aspect of the case has been ignored by both the lower Courts and the findings of the two Courts below have devoid of reasoning.
6. ' In response to the above points, the learned counsel for the respondents raised the following points and urged that:--
(a) The learned lower Court below have exhaustively examined, the evidence adduced by the parties and have taken judicial notice of the legal credibility of the same, as such, the impugned findings are out of ambit of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
(b) That the learned counsel, for the petitioners, himself has admitted the document Exh.D.1, in a way, to be of 30 years old even in para.4 of memo. Of the appeal and the petitioners have failed to rebut this fact, before learned trial Court, rather they have conceded the fact that, the document Exh.D.1 is of 30 years old as such presumption of law under Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat goes in favour of its duly execution.
(c) That, the learned counsel, for the petitioners, is unable to point out with cogent grounds to prove the fact that, both the lower Courts have failed to exercise their jurisdiction or have exercised a jurisdiction not vested with them and have committed any material irregularity of law, therefore, revisional interference of this Court is not required under law.
7. ' I have taken judicial notice of above points raised by the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record of the case with the assistance of both counsel, to come into conclusion that, whether my revisional jurisdiction needs to be exercised to upset the concurrent impugned findings, but from all legal aspects, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is devoid of substance for the reasons that:--
(a) The most astonishing aspect of the case, which is floating on the record of the case, is that, the petitioners despite, being the owners of the suit-land, "(a huge and valuable property)" remained mum and inactive, for decades, while the respondents 1 to 3 and their forefather did all the legal arrangements, to substantiate their title over the disputed land, in spite of the fact that, they, were not in actual possession of the suit-land, the forefather received the Lagan from the tenants, while under law, receiving of Lagan is considered to be token of ownership, if not proved otherwise, although the plaintiffs have taken a plea, in this regard that, their forefather has granted mere receiving of Lagan, but not the exclusive ownership to the forefather of the respondents 1 to 3, but the plea is supportless. On the other side, the plaintiffs admittedly and openly exercised their ownership over the suit-land, by selling a portion of it, by receiving compensation for the portion of disputed land acquired by the Government after due process and no objection was filed by the plaintiffs even before the Collector Land Acquisition, should, I presume at this stage that, the plaintiffs were residing as away as a distance of seven seas across, while they were residing in the adjacent Sub-Division Kharmang of Skardu and they have not been transported from Skardu and Skardu being the Headquarter of Baltistan, residents of adjacent villages are supposed to use to come to Skardu, even in old days, particularly the plaintiffs, who are member of Royal family and it is on the record, that the plaintiff No,1 himself has served as Naib-Tehsildar and Assistant Commissioner, Skardu.
(b) That as for, the document Exh.D.1 is concerned, the plaintiffs have challenged the same, being fraudulent and forged but its execution has not been denied to be of more than 30 years old, but the plaintiffs have badly failed to prove any fraud or forgery in execution of the document, as the burden of fraud or forgery always lies on the party, which asserts the same. Since the age of the document has not been rebutted or disputed as such, under Article 100, Qanun-e-Shahadat, the learned lower Courts have rightly relied upon the document to be true, as Article 100, Qanun-e- Shahadat, purports, when a document is proved to be 30 years old and has been produced by a person, whom the Court considers proper custodian of the document, then the legal presumption goes in favour of it's duly execution. The signatures and the contents of the document presumed to be true and it is not necessary to prove the signatures of marginal witness or scriber.
(c) That some pro forma defendants have ambiguously admitted the contention of the plaintiffs in their written statement, but they have not appeared before the Court as witnesses for recording their statements, as such they have not been subjected to the cross-examination, hence their version through written statement cannot be relied under law.
(d) That the learned counsel for the petitioners, has, failed to persuade my judicial mind to frustrate the impugned concurrent findings of the learned lower Courts, as the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are devoid of substance and no material irregularity in both the impugned findings has been pointed out from the record.
8. ' Consequent upon what has been discussed above, I, concur with the concurrent dismissal orders passed by learned lower Courts and maintain the same and dismiss the revision petition. Parties to bear their own costs. File.