' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. -- Through this civil revision, petitioner has impugned the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2000 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Sadiq Abad, whereby the appeal filed by him was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 11.12.1999 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Sadiq Abad, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed.
2. Briefly, the facts as leading to this civil revision are that respondent-plaintiff on 16.1.1995 filed a suit for declaration stating therein that in accordance with mutation of inheritance No, 1275 attested on 25.4.1983 she is shareholder in the suit property and registered sale-deed NO. 121 attested on 15.1.1984 on the basis of which mutation No, 1381 attested on 27.4.1984 to her extent are forged, fictitious and bogus. It was further alleged that she never transferred her property in favour of Manzoor Hussain, defendant, who is her real brother.
' Filing written statement suit was contested. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their contentions. After the close of trial, vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.1999 suit was decreed. An appeal against thereof was filed before the first Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2000. Hence, this civil revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant states that alongwith the petitioner, other sisters as well as their mother have transferred their share of suit property in favour of defendant, who is real brother of the plaintiff; that suit was time-barred; that shop in question is not partition able; that the proper issues have not been framed and that petitioner has fully proved the execution of impugned sale-deed.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff states that there are concurrent findings of facts in the matter recorded by two Courts below, which ordinarily are not interfered with by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction; that it was inherited property of plaintiff and through forged and fictitious sale-deed, same has been transferred for showing the meager amount of Rs, 5,000/- for the shop situated in Sadiq Abad City Market; that the defendant never appeared as his own witness; that while referring the impugned sale-deed (Ex.D1) learned counsel states that there are difference of alleged signatures of plaintiff at various pages and identity card number of all the other parties have been mentioned except the plaintiff-respondent. It has been further stated that this Court can also compare the signatures of plaintiff on the impugned document; that this revision has been filed by the judgment-debtor through his wife without adopting the proper procedure for filing the revision on behalf of alleged lunatic, therefore this revision petition is not competent; that no any witness has stated that before whom the price of suit property was paid to the plaintiff and that both the Courts below have rightly reached to the conclusion while decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and also gone through the record minutely with their able assistance.
6. The petitioner-defendant being beneficiary was bound under the law to prove the valid execution of sale-deed on behalf of plaintiff. Any admission made by the other party to that sale- deed cannot be used against the plaintiff, as each party has his/her own rights in the property and against the party who has denied the execution when appeared as witness before the Court, and stated on oath that tie' has not transferred the suit property, it was the responsibility, of petitioner- defendant to prove the valid execution of said sale-deed. The petitioner-defendant being the brother of plaintiff and admittedly the suit property was a part of inheritance property, which plaintiff received in inheritance and was joint between the owners and not partitioned, therefore, the possession of co-sharer is presumed on behalf of other co-owners also. In this view of the matter, the suit has rightly been decided by the Courts below that it is not time-barred.
7. Furthermore, filing of this revision petition by the judgment-debtor through his wife is also a deviation from the prescribed procedure and if he is not proved to be a lunatic at the time of filing of this revision petition, the very filing by his wife of this civil revision is nullity in the eye of law, as without the authority of a person, no one can file any appeal or revision or even the, suit, etc. It has not been proved on record that at the 'time of filing of revision he was a lunatic. Therefore, on this score this revision was not competent. In this view of the 'matter, no case for interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of C.P.C. Has been made out by the petitioner- defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant also failed to point out any flaw in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below. Consequently, this civil revision having no substance is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Civil revision .