' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J. The facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that Sher Muhammad, Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Wali Dad Khan and Falak Sher Khan sons of Jamal Khan, Bahadur Khan, Ghulam Haider, Nazar Muhammad Khan and Sardar Khan sons of Muhammad Khan, were owners of the disputed land, they divided this land into small plots. One plot measuring about 5-1/4 marlas was sold to the petitioner vide agreement to sell, dated 29-12-1963. The petitioner's younger brother Aqil Muhammad, was handicapped being deaf and dumb, the petitioner being his elder brother, looked after him and built a house on this plot and offered him to live therein. The relations between the petitioner and the respondent became strained. He served a notice for ejectment on the respondent and later, filed an Ejectment Petition, it was dismissed, aggrieved thereof; he filed an appeal, it too was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner filed a suit for possession, which was decreed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent filed an appeal, which was allowed.
Hence this petition by the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the lower Appellate Court committed glaring illegalities and completely misread the evidence and the arguments made at bar. The judgment of the trial Court is not only well reasoned but is augmented and supported by material evidence as the agreement to sell, the consideration receipt, the PT-I Form and other exhibits on record (Exh.P-1 to Exh.P-5). It also accounted for the oral evidence, these when clubbed together, clearly establish the petitioner's ownership upon the disputed premises. The lower Appellate Court ignored all this important documentary and oral evidence and thereby committed a material irregularity.
3. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the judgment of the trial Court is result of complete misreading of evidence, it has not adverted to the fact that Ejectment Petition was dismissed, appeal against the same was filed, it too, was dismissed, which was not challenged, therefore, it attained finality. Further the agreement in question is an unregistered document and therefore, is not a credible document. To fortify his contentions, he relied on (PLD 1987 Lahore 4) "Talib Hussain v. Babu Muhammad Shafi and 12 others". As there was no relationship of landlord and tenant inter se the parties, therefore, obviously the respondent was living in his property in his own right and lastly, that section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 stipulates that each and every document over the value of Rs, 100 is required to be registered.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree as well as the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
5. It stands established and admitted on record that the petitioner did produce exhibits Exh. P-1 to Exh. P-5. It also is clear from the judgment of the trial Court that the petitioner did produce witnesses to prove his viewpoint, It is worthwhile to mention that the plaintiff/petitioner produced "Waseeqa Navees" as PW-4 who is author of Exh. P-1 and Exh.P-2. The plot in question admittedly was transferred, there is a resolution to this effect by the Municipality, Exh. P-4, PT-I Form, also affirms this position further. Thus, if looked into, there is preponderance of evidence produced by the petitioner/ plaintiff, which establishes that he is the owner of the disputed plot. Contrarily, the evidence produced by the respondent is negligible. Civil matters are adjudicated and decided on preponderance of documentary as well as oral evidence, produced by the parties. On this principle, the evidence produced, by the petitioner clearly outweighs the evidence produced by the respondent. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is concerned that each and every' document under the Transfer of Property Act, over the value of Rs, 100 is required to be registered. The Rule is not absolute to establish ownership, in case, there is convincing evidence on record, the same cannot be brushed aside and ignored on this ground alone, non-adherence to registration is to be visited with a penalty, but it cannot be used as a weapon to snatch lawful ownership of the other party. In the instant matter, there is enough material on record in shape of Exh.P-1 to Exh.P-5 to establish that the petitioner is owner of the disputed plot and therefore, is entitled to hold the possession of the same. As far as the question of dismissal of ejectment petition is concerned, the learned Rent Controller has no authority in law to determine the title to property, therefore, dismissal of the petition and appeal cannot, in any manner, be treated as documents of title and, therefore, are inconsequential for the present purpose. The precedent referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent is distinguishable on facts. Therefore, this petition is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside, the judgment and decree of the trial court is restored. No order as to costs.