' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J:---This consolidated judgment shall dispose of Civil Revision No, 402 of 2001 and R.S.A. No, 11 of 2001.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case giving rise to the filing of the civil revision as well as the R.S.A. Are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners-plaintiffs Abdul Ghafoor Khan filed a suit on 21- 3-1991 against the respondents-defendants on the ground that the suit land was transferred on 15- 10-1980 in connivance with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Faisalabad. The said Abdul Ghafoor Khan deceased never appeared before the Sub-Registrar, neither he had signed any document nor made any statement before the Sub-Registrar nor received consideration price of the suit land.
It was further alleged in the plaint that there was an agreement to sell for the sale of 3 Kanals and 3, Marlas but respondent No, 1 added 4 Kanal and 3, Marlas of Killa No, 12/1 Square No,82 and in this way, he got additional land of 4 Kanals and 3, Marlas for which the said Abdul Ghafoor Khan deceased filed a suit for declaration for the cancellation of the registered sale deed, dated 15-10- 1980. At B the same time, Muhammad Umar Farooq Pasha (respondent No 1) filed a suit for possession through specific performance of the contract against the late Abdul Ghafoor Khan who died during the pendency of the suit alleging that the residential property comprising Killa No, 11- 12/1 in square No, 82 Khawet No,3711 according to Jamabandi for the year 1974-75 situated in Chak No, 224-RB Tehsil and District Faisalabad was owned by the father of Mst.Mukhtaran Begum widow of Abdul Ghafoor Khan who has three brothers Abdul Majid, Abdul Hameed and Abdul Qayyum. The father of Mst. Mukhtaran Begum agreed to sell the land measuring 12 Kanals and 12, Marais comprising Killa Nos. 11 and 12 at the rate of Rs.104,000 per acre to respondent No,1 who paid Rs.33,333 on account of earnest money which was followed by execution of agreement to sell dated 3-5-1980. The vendor promised that the sale deed will be registered on or before 3-8-1981.
Respondent No,1 further produced copies of receipt against the payment made on various dates and according to the contention of respondent No,1, the total amount of Rs.152,781 was paid to the father of Mst. Mukhtaran Begum who got registered 4 sale deeds regarding the land measuring 4 Kanals, 14 Marlas and 6 sarsais on 15-6-1981 whereas the disputed land has yet to be transferred in the name of respondent No,-1 but subsequently, he avoided the transfer of the suit land in the name of respondent No,l. Hence these suits. Both the suits were contested by the opposite parties and out of the divergent pleadings of both the suits issues were framed and after recording of oral as well as the documentary evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17-7-1994 dismissed the civil Suit. No, 213-1/90 titled "Rana Pervez Akhtar v.
Muhammad Umar Farooq etc." for declaration to cancel the registered sale deed while decreed the Civil Suit No,184-1/91 titled "Muhammad Umar Farooq Pasha v. Mst, Mukhtaran Begum etc." for possession through specific performance of agreement in favour of respondent No,1 Muhammad Umar Farooq Pasha. Mst. Mukhtaran Begum widow of Abdul Ghafoor Khan deceased and others filed a Civil Appeal No,84-13/99 and Civil Appeal No,85- 3/99 against the judgment and decree passed the learned trial Court which were entrusted to Mr. Muhammad Anwar Chaudhry, learned Additional District Judge Faisalabad who vide two separate judgments and decrees, dated 23-11- 2000 dismissed both the appeals.
3. In third round of litigation, the legal heirs of the deceased Abdul Ghafoor Khan has challenged both the impugned judgments and decrees in Civil Revision No,402 of 2001 and R.S.A. No,11 of 2001 before this Court on the ground that both the learned lower courts have failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the petitioners-appellants. The learned lower courts took a superficial view on the basis of which both the learned Courts below have non-suited the petitioners-appellants.
Learned counsel further contends that both the learned courts below have erred and has ignored the important fact that a number of opportunities to adduce the evidence in defence were provided to respondent No,1 but respondent No,1 failed to produce even a single witness in support of his claim. Learned counsel further contends that both the learned courts below have not properly perused the document which was prepared illegally and by committing forgery, therefore, the civil revision as well as the regular second appeal be allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below be set aside and the suit for declaration filed by the petitioners be decreed as prayed for in the plaint while the suit for possession through a specific performance of agreement filed by respondent No,I be dismissed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed the civil revision as well as the R.S.A. and has averred that there are concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners-appellants. Further contends that the petitioners-appellants have failed to E produce marginal witnesses of the sale deed even though they were aware of the fact that the onus of proof has shifted upon them.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with their able assistance.
6. The record reveals that in the suit for specific performance of agreement titled "Muhammad Umar Farooq v. Mukhtaran Begum and others" plaintiffs produced as many as six witnesses in their support. P.W.1 is Sajid Gohar who is officer of Habib Bank who confirmed that Muhammad Umar Farooq, respondent No,1 had drawn money from the bank on various dates. He further confirms that a number of cheques were drawn in the name of Abdul Ghafoor Khan who encashed those cheques from the banks and received payments. P.W.2 Akbar Ali Deed Writer deposed that agreement to sell dated 3-5-1980 was reduced in writing by him and this document was signed by deceased Abdul Ghafoor, Abdul Majeed and Abdul Hameed as owners of land. He further confirms that the said document was also witnessed by Muhammad Siddique and Abdul Rasheed who signed the agreement to sell before P.W.Z. P.W.63 Ali Ahmed deposed that he identified Abdul Ghafoor and others at the time of execution of Exh.P-10. The factum of execution of agreement to sell as well as the execution of the sale deed is fully proved by cogent evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners appellants have pointed out some discrepancies during the cross-examination of P.Ws. But minor discrepancies are natural, because evidence of P.Ws was F recorded after a long time, therefore, the minor discrepancies in the circumstances will be ignored.
7. On the other hand, petitioners-appellants have miserably failed to produce even a single marginal witness of the sale deed. The fact is that the onus to prove that the sale deed is a forged and fabricated document lies with the petitioners-plaintiffs but they have failed to discharge their duty. Each party has to stand on his own legs. The petitioners have failed to prove their case by cogent evidence. Non-production of marginal witnesses of the registered sale deed has proved that the claim of petitioners/plaintiffs is not justified. There is also concurrent finding of fact by the two learned courts below against the petitioners-plaintiffs.
8. The perusal of record and the impugned judgments have been carefully examined which proves that both the learned courts below have minutely scanned the evidence and the versions of the parties and thereafter have passed the judgments which are well-reasoned. Learned eounsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs have failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgments, therefore, no interference is called for. I
9. The outcome of the above discussion is that the Civil Revision No,402 of 2001 and R.S.A. No, 11 of 2001 have no force, hence these are dismissed.