Ali Akbar Qureshi, J:- This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.04.1996 and 15.06.1993, passed by the learned courts below, whereby the suit for declaration filed by the respondents was decreed.
2. In this case, the respondents filed suit for declaration, challenging the validity of an exchange deed of agricultural land, alleging therein, that the petitioners/defendants were tenant over the land in question and during the tenancy period, the petitioners/defendants by playing fraud and misrepresentation and with the connivance of the concerned official, prepared a forged exchange deed of the land to deprive him from the valuable land. Lastly prayed that the exchange deed, which is product of fraud be declared illegal and unlawful The petitioners/defendants contested the suit by filing written statement, and controverted the contents of plaint as stated, that in lieu of exchange, the petitioners also had transferred a piece of land in the name of the respondents/plaintiffs and the exchange deed duly executed by the parties, therefore, no fraud was committed.
3. The learned trial court settled down the issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, recorded the evidence and finally decreed the suit. In appeal filed by the petitioners, the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 09.04.1996.
4. After hearing the arguments and examining the record, it is found, that the burden was placed by the learned trial court at the time of framing the issues on the petitioners/defendants to prove the genuineness and validity of the sale deed. As evident from the record, the petitioners/defendants could not produce even a single marginal witness of the alleged sale deed despite the fact, that one of the marginal witness namely, Kaura, was alive and no explanation to this effect was offered by the petitioners. Therefore, this is sufficient to hold that the petitioners/defendants have failed to prove the execution and registration of the exchange deed allegedly executed by the respondent namely Muhammad Boota. Another aspect of the case goes against the petitioners that the witness appeared as DW2, namely, Muhammad Bakhash stated that he does not know the name of the village, where the land is located, although he claimed to be in cultivation possession of the land, whereas DW3 Muhammad Khan/defendant who is son of Allah Dad, the deceased petitioners, although stated that the petitioners have also given a valuable land in exchange but also stated that he was not present at the time of settlement of the transaction of exchange. The learned trial court in order to ascertain the true facts and for a fair and just adjudication of the mater, also sent the thumb impression of the respondents allegedly affixed on Al-Abadat for comparison. The concerned official who conducted the proceedings of the comparison of thumb impression appeared in the court as PW4 and stated, that the thumb impression of the parties regarding registered exchange deed No.2921/1 were found different. Even otherwise, as evident from the record, that the petitioners have miserably failed to adduce any solid, cogent or reliable evidence to substantiate their claim as mere registration of document is not sufficient to prove its execution and validity. As regard the statement of the witnesses on oath recorded on solemn affirmation, both the learned courts below have rightly concluded that no objection at the relevant time was raised by the petitioners. Reliance is placed on "Muhammad Tahir v. The State" (PLD 1984 Peshawar 56).
5. As regard the concurrent finding on facts and law, I am fortified by the esteemed judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of Cantonment Board through Executive Officer Cantt. Board, Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCMR 161), Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469), Noor Muhammad and others v. Mst. Azmat-e-Bibi (2012 SCMR 1373), Ahmad Nawaz Khan v. Muhammad Jaffar Khan and others (2010 SCMR 984), and Malik Muhammad Khaqan v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi (KPT) and another (2008 SCMR 428), that the High Court, normally does not interfere unless the same is result of exercise of jurisdiction not vested with the learned courts below.
6. The learned courts below as evident from the concurrent findings, on facts and on law rightly reached to the conclusion that the respondents have succeeded to prove their case, therefore, there is hardly any reason to interfere therewith. Resultantly, this civil revision stands dismissed with no order as to costs.