' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 2-4-2001 the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner. In the plaint it was stated that the petitioner is her brother and they are owners in equal share of the suit property, fully described in the plaint, under a gift made by their mother in their favour vide registered document dated 8-2-1994. She accordingly prayed for separate possession of her 1/2 share in the suit property. The petitioner in his written statement admitted the factum of gift and shares of the parties. He, however, took the plea that the respondent had executed an agreement in his favour on 10-12-1999 whereby she undertook to pay a sum of Rs,6,10,400 having borrowed the same from him and in case she fails to pay the said amount she will sell her share of the suit property to the petitioner after deducting the amount. His contention was that his sister could only claim balance amount of consideration from him as per the said agreement. Issues were framed.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. A preliminary decree was passed by the learned trial Court on 28-4-2003, while a first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 25-11-2004.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that evidence on record has not been properly read and further that comparison of the signature on the questioned document ought to have been made with some admitted signatures. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that evidence has been properly read by the learned Courts below and conclusion arrived at by them cannot be said to be suffering from any of the defects within the meaning of section 115, C.P.C.
3. I have gone through the copies of the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The contents of the respective pleadings of the parties have already been reproduced above. The case set up by the petitioner was that he had given a loan of Rs,6,10,400 to the respondent lady and she promised to pay the same and further agreed to sell her property upon her failure to do so. The agreement is Exh.D.2. It purports to bear the signatures of the parties and is attested by Shahid Qureshi, Mukhtar Nisar and Mst. Fozia Shahid. The agreement narrates that respondent on various occasions between February, 1995 to 30-11-1999 had received a total sum of Rs,6,10,400 from her brother for construction of her personal house. She will pay said amount in instalment spread over 1-1-2000 to 31-12-2000 and in case she fails to do so she will transfer to him, her share in the house gifted to her by her mother. Regarding consideration it is stated that price of land will be according to "D.C. Rate" while price of structure will be according to the rate fixed by the Government and out of the amount so determined the said amount of Rs,6,10,400 will be deducted and balance will be paid to her. Upon plain reading of this document it constitutes a clog on the equity of redemption and appears to be void. Needless to state that the consideration is wholly uncertain and undetermined. Be that as it may, out of the said witnesses petitioner himself appeared as D.W.3 while Shahid Ashraf appeared as D.W.2 and Mukhtar Nasir appeared as D.W.4. It has been stated by the respondent that he did not pay any amount directly to his sister and he would send the amount either through Shahid Qureshi or through Mukhtar Nasir. So far as Shahid Qureshi, D.W.2 is concerned, he admitted that the petitioner has permitted them to use his shop as an Adda. He did not remember the dates when he went to pay the amounts to the respondent neither could state various amounts, which were given by him to the respondent lady. According to him on all occasions, it was only the respondent who would be present. Of course no receipts were obtained. I may note here that this witness has also stated that agreement Exh.D.2 was scribed in his presence. In this behalf relevant suggestions have been given to him, which he has denied.
Mukhtar Nasir, D.W.4 while stating that agreement Exh.D.2 was written in his presence and bears his signatures. Categorically stated that respondent did not sign in his presence and further stated that neither any money changed hands in his presence nor he himself had given any money to the respondent lady.
4. Upon a plain reading of the said pieces of evidence on record the respondent has failed to prove the case pleaded by him particularly the said consideration for the said agreement Exh.D.2. So far as the matter of comparison is concerned, it has come on record that a fresh NIC was issued to the respondent lady on 4-2-1999 i,e, at a point of time before the alleged execution of Exh.D.2 on 10-12- 1999 and this document as also her pleadings bear her signatures in English whereas the document Exh.D.2 bears her name in Urdu. I may note here that the signatures of the respondent do appear on the document Exh.D.1, which is an admitted gift in favour of brother and sister and her NIC number is also mentioned. This number corresponds with number of Exh.P.3. However, signatures are in Urdu. She has written her full name i,e, Shahida Aslam on the document. Upon comparison of the said two documents it does appear to naked eye that none of the two words on the said two documents appear to be scribed by the same person.
5. Having, thus, examined the record I do not find any case being made out for interference with the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Civil revision is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.