' SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---Through this revision petition the petitioner has assailed the concurrent findings of the two courts below whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed her suit vide judgment and decree dated 23-5-2012 which was maintained and upheld by the learned lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 13-3-2013.
2. Brief but the material facts of the case are that Mst. Hamshida petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit against Umar Sher and others respondents/defendants for a declaration to the effect that land measuring 3-kanals, descriptions of which have been given in the heading of the plaint, is her ownership in possession through unregistered Sale-deed No,312 dated 15-5-1962 from Mst. Hussan Jamala predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/defendants for sale consideration of Rs,21,000; that the respondents/defendants have got no right in the suit property; that after the death of Mst.
Hussan Jamala, her legal heirs i,e, respondents/defendants took benefit of the revenue entries still existing in favour of their predecessor and got attested inheritance Mutation No,2581; that the respondents/defendants have also filed an application for partition during which the petitioner/plaintiff came to know that the suit property was still in the name of Mst. Hussan Jamala in the Revenue Record which is wrong, illegal 'against law and facts as well as ineffective upon her rights and are liable to be corrected. The petitioner/plaintiff has also sought for permanent mandatory injunction restraining the respondents/defendarits to assert their ownership over the suit property, to transfer or to make interference in her peaceful possession and also to make correction in the revenue record in her favour.
3. The suit was is contested by respondents/defendants by filing written statement wherein they denied any sale transaction in favour of the petitioner/ plaintiff. The divergent pleadings of the parties gave birth to the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action? OPP
(2) Whether suit of the plaintiff is within time? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to sue? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties?
(5) Whether the suit is instituted with mala fide intention to harass and humiliate the defendants, if so, its effects? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of 3 kanals landed property on the basis of sale- deed. No,312 dated 15-5-1962 and the disputed inheritance mutation and to be rectified accordingly? OPP
(7) What the relief should be?
4. After recording pro and contra evidence of the parties and hearing their counsel, the learned Civil Judge-III, Lahor District Swabi vide his judgment and decree dated 23-5-2012 dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore who vide his judgment and decree dated 13-3-2013 dismissed the same.
5. Feeling aggrieved from the concurrent findings of the courts below, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the findings of both the courts below are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the impugned judgments are arbitrary, whimsical, capricious and without application of judicial mind; that the impugned judgments are based on surmises and conjectures, that the findings on material issues are not in accordance with law, facts and circumstances of the case. He further argued that the petitioner/ plaintiff has proved her case through cogent, convincing and conclusive, reliable oral or documentary evidence but even then her suit was dismissed. He placed reliance (PLD 1984 SC 424), (PLD 1989 SC 503), (1993 SCMR 428), (1997 SCMR 837), (2002 CLC 1244), (PLD 2001 Lahore 390) and (PLD 2004 SC 325).
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and have also gone through the materials placed on file.
8. The claim of the petitioner/plaintiff is that Mst. Hussan Jamala predecessor-ininterest of the respondents/defendants was his real sister who sold the suit property measuring 3-kanals to her for a sale consideration of Rs,21,000 vide unregistered Sale-deed No,312 dated 15-5-1962 Exh.P.W.4/1 and the possession was delivered to her and the respondents/ defendants have got no right to get attested inheritance Mutation No,2581 in their favour.
9. The moot question for determination by this Court is as to whether Mst. Hussan Jamala, predecessor-in-interest of respondents/defendants had sold the suit property to her sister, petitioner/ plaintiff through unregistered No,312 dated 15-5-1962 for a sale consideration of Rs,21,000. The respondents/defendants in their written statement as well as in the evidence have denied any sale in favour of petitioner/plaintiff thus, the petitioner/ plaintiff is the beneficiary of the said deed is duty bound, having burden of proof on her being its beneficiary of the unregistered sale-deed in question, to prove it beyond any doubt with cogent and conclusive oral and documentary evidence. Let me go through the evidence on file to see whether the plaintiff has fulfilled her duty of burden of proof. Perusal-of evidence produced by the petitioner/plaintiff in suit shows that she has bitterly failed to discharge her burden through cogent, conclusive and trustworthy oral or documentary evidence. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner/plaintiff is entered in the Revenue Record as owner in possession of the suit property through sale from Mst. Hussan Jamala. According to fard jamabandi for the year, 2007-2008 Exh.P.W.1/5 the name of the petitioner/plaintiff is recorded as a co-sharer in the suit property, as per Khasra girdawari for the year 2007 to 2011 Exh.P.W.1/D1 there is no entry of unregistered deed in question which also reveals that she is not in possession of suit property as an exclusive owner. Mst.
Bughdaday, P.W.4 who is also the sister of the petitioner/plaintiff and Mst. Hussan Jamala while appearing in the witness box stated in her cross-examination. That Mst. Hussan Jamala has not transferred her share through mutation or any other way to any of her sisters. She is also stated to be the marginal witness of the unregistered deed Exh.P.W.4/1 and stated that she has thumb- impressed the said deed herself and also in her presence Mst. Hussan Jamala and the two other witnesses Malik Pasham Dad and Ghufran have also thumb-impressed the same but in her cross- examination she has deposed that no male witness has impressed his thumb-mark over Exh.P.W.4/1. She further stated that Mst. Hussan Jamala was born in the year, 1947 and the alleged unregistered deed was executed in the year, 1962 and at that time the age of Mst. Hussan Jamala was 14/15 years. It is not appealable to a prudent mind that in presence of her father, Mst. Hussan Jamala who was aged about 14/15 years can enter into a sale agreement and sell her father's share.
10. It is evident from the evidence on file that the petitioner/plaintiff has failed to establish her claim through any cogent evidence as the witnesses produced by her could not establish the execution of the alleged unregistered deed Exh.P.W.4/1 by Mst. Hussan Jamala predecessor of respondents/defendants. Moreover, sale deed exceeding sale consideration of 99 rupees is compulsorily registerable under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (Act No,XVI of 1908) and if the same is unregistered then it does not confer any right upon the person in whose favour it was executed under section 49 of the said Act. Hence, in view of the non-compliance of the above provisions of the Registration Act, this deed is neither admissible in evidence nor has got any evidentiary value.
11. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that both the courts below after appreciation of evidence on record have rightly non-suited the petitioner/plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. He has also failed to point out that both the Courts below have either exercised the jurisdiction not vested, in it by law or have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it by law or in the exercise of its jurisdiction has acted with illegality or material irregularity warranting interference of this court in the impugned judgments of both the courts below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
12. Resultantly, I find no force in the present revision petition and the same being devoid of force is dismissed in limine along with C.M. No,345 of 2013.