' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---Through this single judgment, I intend to decide two revision petitions i.e. Civil Revisions Nos.1123/D of 1998 and Civil Revision No.1124/D of 1998.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 namely Ghulam Haider filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he purchased agriculture land, detailed in the heading of the plaint, through a registered sale-deed bearing No.166 dated 10-3-1969 against consideration of Rs.8,000 and mutation bearing No.219 in his favour was attested on 24-6-1969, he is the owner in possession of the suit land. Further averred that respondent No.1 namely Muhammad Ali is denying his title to the suit land and has got the mutation No.219 cancelled with the collusion of the revenue officials fraudulently.
' Muhammad Ali respondent No.1, also filed a suit for declaration to the effect that sale-deed No.166 dated 10-3-1969 is an outcome of fraud and forgery and, as such, the same may be declared without any lawful authority.
3. Both the suits were consolidated and the learned trial Court framed the consolidated issues as under: "ISSUES:
(1) Whether the plaintiff purchased the suit land through the registered sale-deed No.166 dated 10- 3-1969, in consideration of Rs.8,000/-? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land under the shadow of the registered sale-deed No.166?
(3) Whether the mutation No.219, dated 24-6-1969, is under review petition?
(4) Whether the suit titled Muhammad Ali v. Abdul Ghani bearing No.105 dated 6-2-1969, has not been instituted with clean hand?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs Ghulam Haider etc. Have no cause of action to bring the present suit?
(6) Relief."
4. After recording the evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed both the suits vide judgment and decree, dated 27-11-1989. However, the learned first Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree and remanded the case vide judgment dated 20-11-1990 with the direction that additional issues be framed and evidence be recorded. The learned trial. Court, after remand, recorded the following additional issues on 20-3-1991:--- "ADDITIONAL ISSUES: (5-A) Whether the respective suits of the parties are barred by time? OP-Parties (5-B) Whether both the suits were insufficiently stamped for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction.. If so, what is the correct valuation? OP-Parties.
(5-C) Whether the parties are entitled to special costs under section 35-A, C.P.C.? OP-Parties
5. On 1-12-1992 the learned trial Court framed another additional issue as under: "ADDITIONAL ISSUE: (5-D) Whether the registered sale-deed No.166 dated 10-3-1969 is illegal, against facts, collusive, based on fraud, inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiff Muhammad Ali and is liable to be set aside? OPD (Muhammad Ali)
6. The learned trial Court after recording evidence on the original as well as additional issues, decreed the suit of the petitioner Ghulam Haider and dismissed the suit of the respondent No.1 Muhammad Ali vide judgment and decree dated 3-1-1993. The respondent Muhammad Ali assailed the said judgment and decree through an appeal which was allowed by the first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree, dated 17-6-1998. Hence these revision petitions.
' Heard. Record perused.
8. The dispute between the parties is that the petitioner Ghulam Haider is claiming that he has purchased the suit land, detailed in the heading of the plaint, through a registered sale-deed whereas the respondent is claiming that sale-deed in favour of the petitioner is fraudulent and is a manufactured document. Learned trial Court on 1-12-1992 framed additional issue No.5-D clinching the real controversy between the parties. The respondent A Muhammad Ali was to prove the said issue but the learned Appellate Court while upsetting the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court has not decided the issue on the basis of evidence adduced by the respondent and relied on the findings on issue No.1 Issue No.1 is not material issue. The sale-deed is a registered document, A certified copy of which is Exdh.P.1. The record of the said sale-deed is available with the Sub- Registrar concerned and, as such, presumption of truth is attached with the said document. If the respondent succeeded to prove issue No.5-D that the said sale-deed is the outcome of fraud and is inoperative against his rights, then the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner Ghulam Haider is bound to be cancelled. The learned Appellate Court decided issue No.5-D as under:-- "Consequent upon my finding under issue. No.1 above, the sale-deed No.166 dated 10-3-1969 is against facts, law, collusive, fraudulent, void, and as such inoperative qua the rights of Muhammad Ali, appellant. It is hereby set aside. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of Muhammad Ali, appellant and against the respondent Ghulam Haider, etc."
9. Issue No.1 is framed in the suit of Ghulam Haider who in his suit prayed that mutation No.219 dated 24-6-1969 was attested in his favour on the basis of said sale-deed but subsequently mutation No.219 was reviewed without his knowledge by the revenue officials and, as such, it is not obligatory on Ghulam Haider to prove that his sale deed is genuine. There is no question of genuineness of the sale-deed in favour of Ghulam Haider in his suit, and this suit is that mutation No.219 was wrongly set aside by the revenue officials.
The learned Appellate Court has wrongly held that certified copy of sale-deed (Exh.P.l) available on record is not admissible in evidence. Certified copy of sale-deed in favour of Ghulam Haider is duly admitted in evidence being a registered document; certified copy of the same was issued by the Sub-Registrar. The registered sale-deed is a public document and every one can get certified copy of the said document and, as such, the learned Appellate Court has wrongly held that this certified copy is not admissible in evidence unless it is proved that the original has lost. The genuineness of the sale-deed of Ghulam Haider in his suit is not in question. It is the respondent Muhammad Ali who is claiming that the sale-deed in favour of Ghulam Haider is fraudulent document and as such it was the duty of Muhammad Ali to prove that it is a fraudulent document, he has not executed the sale-deed and the sale-deed is not available in the record of the Sub-Registrar. Muhammad Ali is a Patwari and presumption is that he has the access to the Revenue Record and cancellation of mutation in favour of Ghulam Haider may be with his connivance with the revenue officials and, as such, it was the duty of Muhammad Ali to establish that he never executed the registered sale- deed in favour of Ghulam Haider nor received consideration. Ghulam Haider is in absolute possession of the property from the date of execution of the sale-deed and, as such, presumption of truth of the sale-deed is in his favour. The learned trial Court has rightly framed Issue No.5-D and after discussing all the evidences decided this issue against Muhammad Ali. If the Appellate Court was of the opinion that the findings on issue No.5-D are not according to the evidence available on record, the learned Appellate Court should have given detailed findings on the said issue but the learned Appellate Court has only relied on the findings on issue No.1 in suit filed by Ghulam Haider and passed the decree assuming that it was the duty of Ghulam Haider to prove that his sale- deed is genuine.
10. In view of the above, judgment dated 17-6-1998 passed by the learned Appellate Court is not sustainable in law and is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Appellate Court with the direction that he will decide issue No.5-D afresh after revisiting the evidence as well as record. However, in case the learned Appellate Court thinks that further evidence is required, he can direct the parties to produce further evidence on the said issue. There is no order as to costs.
11. As the suit is an old case, it is desirable that learned Appellate Court will decide the appeal within three months from the receipt of copy of this judgment.