' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 8-2-2012 passed by learned Addl: District Judge, Sargodha, whereby the appeal filed by her was dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 29-4-2008 passed by learned Civil Judge, Sargodha, whereby the suit for declaration filed by the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts as leading to this civil revision are that on 26-9-1990 the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration that she is daughter of Muhammad Ali and Mst. Iqbal Begum, both deceased and as such she is entitled to inherit them. She also challenged the allotment of land fully described in the head note of plaint on the basis of RL-II bearing No,27 in favour of defendant No,3 and deceased Aziz-ur-Rehman alleging that actually the allotment was to be made in favour of legal heirs of Muhammad Ali deceased. The plaintiff challenged the sale of land in favour of defendants Nos.4 to 4-G, defendant No,5 and defendants No,6 to 31 through registered sale-deed No,707 attested on 9-8-1963 with regard to land measuring 55-3/4 Kanals and further sale in favour of defendants through registered sale-deed No,915 attested on 10-8-1965. The plaintiff prayed that both the sale-deeds be cancelled to the extent of share of plaintiff as well as her mother and also prayed for possession of suit-land.
3. The defendant No,3 (Abdul Rehnian) filed consenting written statement, whereas defendants Nos.4, 5 to 11 filed their separate written statements and contested the suit. Learned trial Court framed the issues on 6-7-1991 and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their versioes. In the final round vide judgment and decree dated 29-4-2008 suit was dismissed by learned trial Court.
Feeling aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred before learned first appellate court, which also met with the same fate vide, judgment and decree dated 8-2-2012. Hence, this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff has filed an application (C.M. No,2-C-2012) for permission to produce the order No,CSC Case No,692 of 2010 dated 17-8-201.1 passed by Dr. Nazir Saeed, Member (Judicial-V), Board of Revenue/ Chief Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer/Member (Residual Properties) Punjab. The reply was filed by the contesting respondents. On 13-6-2013 arguments on this application were heard and for arguments on the main civil revision case was adjourned for today. Learned counsel for the respondents states that as this is 3rd application for permission to produce the additional evidence filed by the petitioner-plaintiff after the decision of case by the trial Court, therefore there is no necessity to decide this application on merits before the decision of instant revision. Learned counsel further stated that he has no objection if the notice be taken of this order but states that he has objection on the evidentiary value of this order. For the consideration of this order even the learned counsel for the applicant has no objection. In this view of the matter, this application (C.M. No,2-C-2012) is formally decided that this Court will take notice of the order sought to be produced as additional evidence at the time of decision of main civil revision. In this way it is hereby disposed of.
5. So far as the merits of case are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff argues that previously the matter was decided twice and remanded by the appellate court and even the matter of additional evidence came up before this Court and finally the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, therefore this revision petition has been filed; that actually the claim was of the father of plaintiff and both the brothers of plaintiff fraudulently got the suit-land allotted in their names on 13-5-1960 through Exh.P-4 (RL-II 270), therefore all the subsequent proceedings and transfer of land are illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff-petitioner; that both the courts below have ignored the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff in her claim which was sufficient to decree the suit. Further states that the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner sought to be produced in additional evidence is also in support of assertions made by the plaintiff in her plaint, therefore the suit was liable to be decreed but both the courts below fell in error while dismissing the suit as well as appeal. While relying upon "2009 SCM R 589 (Gul Rehman v. Gul Nawaz Khan)" learned counsel states that it was the duty of first Appellate Court to scrutinize entire evidence in the judgment. Further while relying upon "1984 SCM R 1027 (Manzoor Hussain v. Fazal Hussain and others)" argues that when the land was fraudulently got allotted in the name of seller, therefore purchaser cannot take .The plea of bona fide purchaser. Further states that the respondents cannot claim bona fide purchaser. In this regard learned counsel has relied upon "1985 SCM R 491 (Gul Muhammad and others v. The Additional Settlement Commissioner and others)" Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff lastly while relying upon "2003 SCM R 549 (Talib Hussain and others v. Member Board of Revenue and others)" argues that when the transaction was based upon fraud and fraudulent transaction vitiates even most solemn proceedings, such transaction has no value. Learned counsel prays for acceptance of this civil revision and setting aside the impugned judgment.; and decrees passed by bah thc courts below and decree of the suit.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argues that by admitting a document and exhibiting the same in evidence does not by itself attach any evidentiary value to that document and evidentiary value is to be seen independently; that there are separate claims of father and both the brothers of plaintiff; that the , suit was filed on _ 26-9-1990 and in whole the suit there is no mention of Exh.P-2; that the plaintiff is bound by the statement made by her own witness who appeared as P.W.4 and also brought the record and the court was never asked to declare him as hostile, therefore the plaintiff is bound by the statement of said witness who deposed against the case of plaintiff, whereas the statement of P.W.4 is in accordance with the record. Further states that actually the suit has been got filed by the brother of plaintiff, who is defendant No,3 for his greed to injure the rights of contesting defendants to whom he himself has transferred the suit property through registered sale-deeds, therefore his admission has absolutely no value. While referring the cross-examination of plaintiff who appeared as P:W.2 learned counsel states that she has admitted that separate claims of her father and brothers came from India and in the property allotted against the claim of her father, share of inheritance has been received by her. Further argues that the suit was absolutely tune-barred When the allotment was confirmed in favour of allottees who are the real brothers of plaintiff and the suit property was sold through registered sale-deeds in the year 1963 and 1965 and filing of suit in the year 1990 is certainly time- barrel; that the possession of defendants is also admitted since the time of sale in their favour; that. Even Exh.P-2 was got exhibited in the statement of learned counsel and this document was received under objection, wherein claim number of father of plaintiff has been mentioned as 2682 and Serial Number is 270 and further that in Exh.P-2 the registration Narnber is 1174 and not a claim Number, therefore states that the claim winch was first wongty sent for the allotment rural land remains the same and the claim Number will not be changed by sending the claim for allounent of urban land. Further argues that as Exh.F-2 which is otherwise a forged and fictitious document, therefore it was not put to P.W.4 who was the witness of plaintiff and record was available before him when he made the statement, which clearly shows that Exh.P-2 is a forged and fictitious document; that on 9-6-2009 an application was filed before the Addl: District Judge for requisition of original record from the Central Record Room but subsequently the same was withdrawn on .2- 2-2010 and a new application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the C.P.C. Was moved whereby Exh.P-12 was produced as an additional evidence. Further argues that ordinarily this Court does not interfere in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by two courts below until and unless the petitioner-plaintiff has been able to show misreading and non reading of evidence or any material irregularity or infirmity hi the findings of two courts below. On technical grounds learned counsel for the respondents while relying upon "PLD 1993 Supreme Court 147 (Province of the Punjab through Member Board of Revenue, (Residual Properties), Lahore and others v. Muhammad Hussain through_ Legal Heirs and others) has argued that after the repeal of settlement laws, office of Chief Settlement Commissioner do not exist in the eye of law, therefore the order sought to be produced as an additional evidence has absolutely no evidentiary value. Further states that Exh.F- 12 is not an order, rather it is a report prepared on a miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff unilaterally hearing he, therefore the report prepared by any official is not per se admissible till the time he comes to the court, makes a statement and also brings the record on the basis of which the report has been prepared. While relying upon 2009 YLR 1255, (Sagheer Muhammad Khan and 5 others v. Member (Judicial-V) Board of Revenue, 'Punjab and 4 others)" argues that the Chief Settlement Commissioner is no longer an entity much less a legal entity.
Further while relying upon 2004 CLD 1 (International Multi Leasing Company v. Capital Assets Leasing. Corporation Limited and another)" states that a document prepared during the pendency of suit has otherwise no value. It has been further argued that the suit was not competent as the land was allotted on RL-II in the year 1960 and at that relevant time forum of appeal was available to the plaintiff but after more than 30 years of allotment with the connivance of her brothers she has filed the suit, which defence is very strengthened by filing consenting written statement by defendant No,3 and leaves no doubt to declare the suit as collusive one.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and also gone through the record, impugned judgments and decrees and also the case-law relied by learned counsel for the parties.
8. So far as the document sought to be produced as additional evidence through C.M. No,2-C-2012 is concerned, I have noticed that there is no need to formally decide this application as learned counsel for the respondents has stated that he has no objection if the document be considered but its evidentiary value is to be kept in mind. I have seen that this order was passed on an application of Abdul Hameed, etc. Against the order passed by the Member (Judicial-V), Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 16-1-2010 on the application of Mst. Mumtaz Gulshan, which has been produced in the Court as Exh.P-12. The said order was actually a report on the basis of a reference of some record issued without hearing the other side.i,e, Abdul Hameed etc, therefore they moved this application only for the review of order dated 16-1-2010, which is Exh.P-12 but the said application was filed on the basis that the matter with regard to inheritance of Mst. Mumtaz Gulshan is pending before the Civil Court. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the list of Notified Officers, according to Notification No, 1.3.30-P.A. To Secy/ 2004-1-C-III dated 7-7-2.004, Member (Judicial-VI) Board of Revenue Punjab is the Notified Officer for Sargodha Division, therefore all the proceedings conducted by the Member (Judicial-V) Board of Revenue Punjab posing himself to be the Chief Settlement Commissioner/Board of Revenue are nullity in the eye of law. I have also taken notice of the judgments 2009 YLR 1255 and PLD 1993 Supreme Court 147" that the Chief Settlement Commissioner in fact no such office did exist in the eye of law after the repeal of the Settlement laws, therefore the orders passed by the Member (Judicial-V) posing himself to be the Chief Settlement Commissioner when admittedly he was not Notified Officer for the area are nullity in the eye of law. Furthermore, the orders have been passed during the pendency of suit. On this score I take light from the judgments reported as 1997 M LD 1779 (Allah Bakhsh and others v. Member Board of Revenue and others) and 2004 CLD 1 (International Multi Leasing Company v. Capital Assets Leasing Corporation Limited and another)" to hold that any document prepared during the pendency of suit by the Revenue authorities or any authority has no value against the evidence which has directly been produced by the parties on the file of a civil suit. In this view of the matter, Exh.P-12 as well as the alleged order dated 17- 8-2011 sought to be produced as additional evidence passed by the Member (Judicial-V) Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner posing himself to be the Notified Officer, cannot be used against the respondents. Even otherwise the original order dated 16-1-2010 (Exh.P-12) which is not more than a report and further this document has been exhibited under objection by the other side, therefore for proving a report it is settled principle of law that the person making a report on the basis of some material available before him, the evidentiary value attaches with that report only when the maker thereof comes to the court and makes a statement, brings the record on the basis of which said report has been prepared and also faces the cross-examination by the other side. In this case this document has been got exhibited on the statement of learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner, that too, under objection and this document has absolutely no evidentiary value, therefore the order dated 17-8-2011 has also no evidentiary value.
9. Further facts and merits of the case are very simple. The statement of plaintiff who appeared as P.W.2 is very much relevant. She has admitted that she and Abdul Rehman, her brother live at one place and that the property confirmed in the name of her father against the claims which came from India was allotted and confirmed in Hafiz Abad and Gujranwaia and the same was transferred in the name of plaintiff, her mother and brothers. Farther the Whole case of petitioner- plaintiff revolves around Exh.?
2. This document as noted by both the courts below is in much dilapidated condition. There are factual findings recorded by learned trial Court that by other writing the Registration No,1174 has been endorsed upon this document, which is different from the other entries and this document has also not contained the seal and signatures of the issuing authority. Further when in juxta-position with mark A, the copy of RL-H Register, which has been produced by P.W.4/witness of plaintiff, this document is seen wherein the Number of claim has been mentioned as 11740 and Sr, No,270, whereas P.W.4 clearly stated that he brought the original record of 127 northern urban area Sillanwali, Claim No,11740 is in favour of Abdul Rehman and Aziz- ur-Rehman sons of Muhammad Ali. Whereas Exh. P-12 produced by the plaintiff herself shows that Claim No,2682 of Muhammad Ali, her father was scrified for Mouza Kassoki Tehsil Hafiz Abad and Registration No,11740 was sent to Mouza Kassoki Tehsil Hafiz Abad for land measuring 93-Kanals 15- marlas on 19-11-1959. In this view of the matter, when the plaintiff admits that she has received the land allotted against the claim of ner father in inheritance and she does not rebut the right of her brothers with regard to allotment of land against the claims came from India, therefore she miserably failed to prove the case pleaded by her. The consenting written statement filed by defendant No,3/brother of plaintiff does not strengthen the case of plaintiff, rather it shows the connivance of both the parties, as suit-land was sold through registered sale-deeds by defendant No,3 in the year 1963 and 1965 and received the consideration and delivered the possession to the vendees. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff failed to prove that the land was actually allotted against the claim of her father. Besides, the suit has been filed with an unexplained delay after the prescribed period of limitation for filing a suit. I have seen that both the courts below have rightly scrutinized the evidence available on the file and reached to a right conclusion while dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. Learned appellate court is required under the law to discuss the evidence relating to the point in issue before it and expecting that the appellate court will refer statement of each and every witness of the parties produced before the court as well as each document whether the same are relevant or not for the decision of point in issue, is neither requirement of law nor necessary. As the plaintiff failed to show that allotment in favour of her brothers was fraudulent, therefore the purchase of suit-land by the contesting defendants is valid one. They are not required to prove the plea of bona fide. Even otherwise, the seller was recorded owner of land at the time of sale. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff has not been able to highlight any material illegality or infirmity and misreading or non-reading of evidence on the part of two courts below while recording the concurrent findings of facts in the matter. Therefore. No case for interference by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under section 115 of the C.P.C. Has been made out.
10. The crux of above discussion is that the petitioner-plaintiff miserably failed to substantiate her claim as pleaded by her. Consequently, this civil revision being devoid of any substance is dismissed with no order as to costs. .