' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--On 12-1-1993 Qasim Ali the predecessorin-interest of the respondents filed a suit against the petitioner. In the plaint it was stated that Muhammad Sadiq, predecessorin- interest of petitioners Nos.' to 4 and Muhammad Alam petitioner No,5 purchased the suit property vide unregistered sale-deeds, dated 23-10-1955. Qasim Ali purchased the property from the said two persons vide unregistered sale-deed, dated 2-12-1969. The possession was delivered. However, the sale-deeds were not got incorporated in the Revenue Record. The property otherwise is of urban nature and in the Excise and Taxation records. Qasim Ali was recorded, as the owner. The utility connections are also in his name: The petitioners have started denying his title about 1 1/2 months before the institution of the suit. With these averments a declaration was sought that the petitioners are owners in possession of the suit property and an injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with their possession. The petitioner in the first instance were proceeded against ex parte and ex parte decree was passed which was later set aside. They filed a written statement denying the said allegation. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded.
The learned trial court decreed the suit on 16-5-2002. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned ADJ Kasur on 28-10-2002.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents claimed ownership on the basis of unregistered documents and as such the learned courts below committed an error in relying upon the same which are otherwise forged and fabricated documents. According to him Qasim Ali in fact was a tenant in the property under the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the petitioners themselves have purchased the property by means of unregistered documents and it was transferred similarly and further that it was categorically asserted and proved that the original documents of title were also delivered to Qasim Ali. The sale-deeds have been proved in accordance with law by producing all available evidence.
4. I have gone through the copies of the records. There is no denial that the petitioners had purchased the property by means of unregistered documents dated 22-10-1955. The respondents claim to have purchased the same vide documents Exhs. P.1, 2, 3 and 4. These are unregistered documents executed on 2-12-1969. There is no allegation and no evidence on record that at the relevant time, B the market price was more than the one stated in the said documents. Be that as it may, the documents have been proved by producing Sabir Ali P.W.4 who is the marginal witness and Mehboob Hussain the scribe P.W.3. It has also come on the record that the second marginal witness namely Ghulam Muhammad had died by the time the evidence commenced in the case. I have examined their statements with the assistance of the learned counsel and I do not find anything in the cross-examination to derogate from the statements Made in the examination-in- chief. It is also a matter of record that the documents through which the petitioners had acquired the land were produced by the petitioner. These are marked and Exh.P.9. There is no explanation as to how Qasim Ali came into possession of the said documents. Apart from this the record prepared for the urban immovable property (Exhs.P.6 and P.7) shows Qasim Ali to be recorded as an C owner. These pertain to the years 1984-85 and 1989-90. The utility bills' have also been produced showing the connections in the name of said Qasim Ali. So far as the plea that Qasim Ali was a tenant is concerned, the respondents have produced on record the copy of the proceedings whereby an ejectment petition Exh.P.10 was filed by the petitioners against the respondents. These were contested with reference to the acquisition of the property by them and the ejectment petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
5. Having thus examined the record, do not find any ground being made out to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees under section 115, C.P.C. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.