CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J. This civil revision has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 11-10-2001 passed by Mr. Mansoor Akbar Kokab, learned District Judge Narowal who accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27-11-2000 passed by Mr. Ejaz Ahmad Butter, learned Civil Judge First Class Narowal.
2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in civil revision are that Umar Din son of Sawan, a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir, was the owner of land measuring 85 kanal, 9 marla, which was sold on 7-1-1981 in favour of Shukar Din predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 8.
3. Shukar Din, vendee of the suit-land, filed a suit to the effect that he be declared an absolute owner and in exclusive possession of the suit-land on the basis of registered sale-deed executed in his favour on 7-1-1981 (Exh. P2) and respondents have no title, right or interest, whatsoever, with the suit-land. The suit was resisted by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners-defendants on the ground that the sale deed Exh.P2 is a forged and fabricated document because Umar Din the vendor of the suit-land died on 5-1-1981 prior to the execution of the suit-land. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-- "(1) Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of suit property which he had purchased from deceased Umar Din in accordance with sale deed dated 7-1-1981 and defendants have no right to interfere in it? OPP
(2) Whether order dated 2-11-1981 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner is void, illegal and ineffective upon the right of plaintiff? OPP
(3) Whether plaintiff has got no cause of action? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is not likely to proceed in its present from? OPD
(5) Whether deceased Umar Din expired on 5-1-1981? OPD
(6) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD
(7) Whether sale deed in favour of plaintiff is a result of fraud, as such same is no legal value? OPD
(8) Relief."
4. After recording of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27-11-2000 dismissed the suit. Feeling dissatisfied, the respondents filed an appeal which was allowed on 11-10-2001 by. Mr. Mansoor Akbar Kokab learned District Judge Narowal. Hence this civil revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the impugned judgment and decree has been rendered in complete oblivion of the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned first appellate court has ignored the documentary evidence which had fully established that the alleged sale deed dated 7-1-1981 is 'a forged document because it has been established by cogent evidence that Umar Din, owner of the suit-land had expired on 5-1-1981, therefore, the civil revision be allowed, the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court be restored.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 8 has vehemently opposed this civil revision and has supported the impugned judgment.
7. I have heard the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with their able assistance.
8. The moot point involved in the matter is that whether Exh. P2, the registered sale deed, is a genuine document or it is a forged and fabricated document. To establish this fact, the issue as to when Umar Din, the owner of the suit-land/ alleged vendor died" has to be determined. The scan of record reveals that Exh. P4 is an important document which is a certified copy of death certificate of Umar Din. According to Exh. P4, Umar Din died on 5-1-1981,, the death of Umar Din was recorded in the relevant register of death on 11-1-1981 by Gulab Din, Watch Man who is an independent person and against whom none of the parties had raised any objection to impeach his credibility.
According to Exh.P4, the said Gulab Din, Watchman informed the Town Committee Kotli Loharan about the death of Umar Din and accordingly the entry of death of Umar Din was incorporated in the relevant register. The record further reveals that a complaint with regard to the controversy of death. of Umar Din was also lodged with the then Deputy Commissioner Sialkot who directed for an inquiry and accordingly, after deep probe, it was held that Umar Din was died on 5-1-1981 and sale deed (Exh. P2) executed on 7-1-1981 is a forged and fabricated document. Thereafter, on the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner Sialkot and District Attorney Sialkot a criminal case No,241/87 under sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 109, P.P.C. was also registered against following persons:
(i) Muhammad Hussain Councillor, Union Council Mararah Resident of Salowal.
(ii) Nazir Ahmed son of Karam Dad, Resident of Salowal.
(iii) Abdul Majeed son of Sardar Khan, Caste Rajput, Resident of Sangowala, Tehsil Narowal.
(iv) Halqa Patwari.
9. The challan of the above said case was sent to the learned trial Court but during the proceedings of the criminal case, it was adjourned sine die till the decision of present civil litigation.
The perusal of record further shows that prior to filing of the instant suit for declaration, the plaintiffs on 19-2-1984 filed a suit which was dismissed on 19-3-1984 Filed a suit which was dismissed on 19-3-1984 under order IX, Rule 2, .P).b.
10. During the arguments, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 8 has emphasized a lot on Exh.
P8 and Exh. P9 which are copies of affidavits submitted by Mst. Barkat Bibi and Kaley Khan.
Respondents cannot derive a favourable inference from these affidavits because despite the fact that Mst..Barkat Bibi and Kaley Khan had been appearing but they were never confronted with these affidavits. The controversy of determining the date of death of Umar Din is fully established by documentary evidence while in rebuttal, the respondents have failed to produce any convincing evidence except the statements of DWs. It is established law that contents of a document cannot be rebutted with the oral evidence.
11.The perusal of pleadings and oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties fully establish that Umar Din, the owner of the suit - land was died on 5-1-1981 and the sale deed Exh. P2 executed on 7-1-1981 is a forged and fabricated document. Learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of Shukar Din. Another important aspect of the matter is that on 19-2-1984, the said Shukar Din filed the first suit which was dismissed on 19-3-1984 under Order IX, Rule 2, C.P.C.
Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff waited till 23-12-1986 and then filed the instant suit after elapse of more than 2 years and 9 months which is nothing but an afterthought.
12. The epitome of the above discussion is that the learned appellate court has erred while accepting the appeal as the learned first appellate court has ignored the un rebutted documentary evidence which is not warranted under the law. As a consequence, the civil revision is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree dated 41-10-2001 passed by Mr. Mansoor Akbar Kokab, learned District Judge Narowal is set asid and the judgment and decree dated 27-11-2000 passed by Mr. Ejaz Ahmad Buttar, learned Civil Judge First Class, Narowal is restored. Parties are left to bear their own costs.