' CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.---The petitioners through the instant civil revision under section 115 of C.P.C.
Have challenged the judgment and decree dated 15-1-1997 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif who dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and maintained the judgment and decree dated 15-7-1993 whereby the suit of the respondents was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction whereby they averred that they were owners of the land, measuring 102 kanals, 16 marlas, fully described in the plaint. It was further alleged in the plaint that defendants Nos.1 to 3 were tenants at will; that defendants Nos.1 to 4 in connivance with defendant No,5 got prepared a registered Sale-deed No,1264 dated 18-4-1982 for a consideration of Rs,50,000, on the basis of which Mutation No,302 dated 19-6-1982 was sanctioned. It was prayed in the plaint that the said registered sale-deed and mutation are result of fraud, forgery and impersonation, as such, these be declared null and void.
3. The petitioners-defendants opposed the suit and filed written statement. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. After recording oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 15-7-1993. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed appeal which also met with the same fate vide impugned judgment and decree dated' 15-1-1997 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif. This civil revision has been filed challenging both the judgments and decrees of learned courts below.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the judgments passed by learned courts below are against law and fact. Both the courts below have failed to apply their judicious mind while delivering the judgments which suffer from misreading and non-reading of material evidence produced by the petitioners. Learned counsel further maintains that the onus of issue No,4 was wrongly shifted upon the petitioners-defendants as the plaintiffs were required to prove their case-beyond any shadow of doubt. Learned. Counsel asserts that no fraud has been committed, therefore, the civil revision be allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed this civil revision and fully supported the impugned judgments and decrees.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. It reveals from the record that P. W.1 Shabbir Raza, Expert Finger Print Bureau appeared before the court, he took A specimen thumb-impressions of the plaintiffs in presence of the learned Presiding Officer which were examined by , a team of experts. The specimens were put in juxta-position with those on the registers of petition writer and mutations. The experts reached the conclusion that the specimen thumb-impressions of the plaintiffs neither tally with the thumb impressions present on the register of petition writer nor With those present on the register of mutations. Further, the petitioners-defendants failed to produce the original sale-deed which shows that no sale-deed was in fact made in their favour by the plaintiffs. If any sale-deed had been made in their favour, this must have been available with them and they might have produced the same before the court but they completely failed to do so.
8. So far as shifting of onus of issue No,4 upon the petitioners defendants is concerned, it is settled principle of law that when fraud has been alleged, then beneficiary of document is liable to prove that the disputed document was got prepared in accordance with law and that no forgery or fraud was committed. Since in this case, the plaintiffs have called into question the legality and validity of sale-deed and the mutation allegedly made in favour of the petitioners, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to prove the documents to be true. But neither they could produce original sale-deed nor the mutation was found to have been executed by the plaintiffs as their thumb impressions did not tally with the same. There is no receipt of payment on the record nor any marginal witness or scribe 'of the sale-deed could be produced by the petitioners as per requirements of Articles 17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. This makes the things crystal clear that the petitioners had got prepared 'the sale-deed dated 18-4-1982 and sanctioned the Mutation No,302 dated 19-6-1982 through fraud, forgery and misrepresentation, therefore, it being of no legal value was void. It has been held by the superior courts in a number of cases that when a basic transaction is void, the subsequent events will also be of no legal effect, illegal and void.
9. Another contention of learned counsel for the petitioners agitated before this Court is that when the possession of the property in dispute was lying with the petitioners, the plaintiffs should have filed the suit for possession but they wrongly filed the suit for declaration which was not sustainable in the eye of law. However, the respondents-plaintiffs have taken plea in the plaint that the petitioners were their tenants and the . Possession of tenant is always considered the possession of the owner/ principal. Furthermore, the documents on the basis of which the petitioners claim their ownership are also void and a void document cannot create any right. Therefore, this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners does not hold water.
10. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the case was earlier remanded to the learned trial Court to record the evidence of Tehsilar/ Sub-Registrar concerned but the same was not recorded, however, the record speaks out that it were the petitioners who failed to deposit the process fee despite providing them six opportunities. Therefore, the trial Court rightly closed right of defence of the petitioners as they did not show their interest in summoning the Tehsildar.
11. There are concurrent findings of law and fact against the petitioners. Both the learned courts below have rightly held that the disputed Sale-deed No,1264, dated 18-4-1982 and Mutation No, 302 dated 19-6-1982 are result of fraud and forgery. Learned counsel for the petitioners has badly failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, misreading or non- reading of evidence in the impugned judgments calling for interference by this Court.
12. The result of the above discussion is that this civil revision is without any merit which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.