' The facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration with the consequential relief for permanent injunction against the petitioners claiming that she was owner of land measuring 7 Marlas 5 Sarsai of Ehata No, 4, situated at Chak No, 11/11-L Chichawatni. It was further averred in the plaint that the petitioner who is the Nephew of her husband fraudulently got a registered Sale-Deed. No, 600 executed in his favor on 02.07.2002 and subsequent Mutation No, 260 dated 20.07.2002 in his favor which is a result of fraud and since the petitioner is permanent residing in Canada. She neither got the sale-deed executed in favor of the petitioner/defendant nor appeared before any revenue authority to get impugned Mutation No, 260 sanctioned in favor of the petitioner. As soon as the respondent/Plaintiff on her return from Canada; came to know of the fraud committed by the petitioner/defendant a criminal case FIR No, 170/2009 under Sections 468, 471, 478, 420 PPC, dated 01.07.2009 was got registered at P.S City, Chichawatni and the petitioner/defendant along with other co-accused have been found guilty during the investigation and Challan has been submitted with Magistrate, P.S. City, Chichawatni. The petitioner/ defendant filed a contesting written statement and upon the divergent pleadings, the following issued were framed by the learned trial Court:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration with permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
(2) Whether the registry Bai No, 600 dated 02.07.2002 & Mutation No, 260 dated 20.07.2002 based on fraud, connivance and the same are liable to be cancelled as prayed for? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff has cause of action? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPP
(5) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and is liable to be dismissed?1 OPD
(6) Relief?
2. The respondent /plaintiff appeared herself at; PW-1 and got examined Abdul Majeed Khan as PW-2, got her statement recorded on oath. On the other hand, defendant/petitioner appeared as DW-1 and examined one Shahbaz Ali as DW-2.
3. The learned trial Court after giving its elaborate findings on Issue Nos. 1 and 2, decreed the suit through judgment and decree, dated 27.06.2013 filed by the respondent/plaintiff declaring the registered Sale-Deed No, 600, dated 02.07.2002 and Mutation No, 260, dated 20.07.2002 as null and void and further directed the respondent/plaintiff to pay a Court fee of Rs, 3,000/- till 27.07.2013.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 27.06.2013 an appeal was filed before Additional District Judge, Chichawatni which was also dismissed through judgment and decree dated 07.06.2014, hence this civil revision.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing us arguments contended that the findings of both the Courts below are against law, facts and contrary to the evidence; it is further argued that both the judgments and decrees are based on conjectures and surmises and material irregularities were committed by both the Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is established from the record that respondent/plaintiff appeared as PW-1 before the learned trial Court and denied the execution of a sale-deed. On the other hand, the petitioner/defendant appeared as DW-1 deposed that the disputed property was purchased by him in consideration of Rs,40, 000/- through registered sale-deed Ex-D/1 but during the cross-examination, he admitted that case FIR No, 170/2009 under Section 468, 471 478, 420 PPC was registered against the petitioner as well as his witness DW-2 and the trial is pending before the learned Area Magistrate. He further admitted that his witnesses namely Shafique and Ellahi Baldish are not ready to give evidence. He stated that Mr. Zubair Ahmad Baloch, Advocate identified the respondent at the time of registration of sale-deed but in cross-examination, he admitted that he did not have the knowledge that Zubair Ahmad Khan Baloch gave his affidavit that respondent/plaintiff was not identified by him.
DW-2 namely Shahbaz admitted that he was not a witness to a registered sale-deed.
8. The respondent categorically deposed in her statement that she never appeared before any revenue officer nor received any consideration.
9. It would be expedient to refer to Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 which is reproduced below:- "Section 79. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested -- If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until two attesting witnesses at least have been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be two attesting witnesses alive, and subject to the , process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: ' Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the executions of any documents, not being a will which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied."
10. There is no denial to the fact that initial presumption of truth is attached with the correctness of a registered document, but when its execution is denied. The document would lose its sanctity, and its veracity would become dependent upon quantum and quality of evidence produced to prove its execution.
11. It is established from record that petitioner while appearing as DW-1 admitted that Shafique Ahmad and Ellahi Bakhsh are the witnesses of registered sale-deed; and Mr. Zubair Ahmad Khan Baloch, Advocate identified the respondent/plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale-deed. It is also admitted that all three persons are alive. The best evidence was available with the petitioner to prove the execution of registered sale-deed, but he has neither produced the marginal witnesses nor the person who allegedly identified the respondent/plaintiff. It is also not out of place to mention here that no effort has been made by the petitioner to produce the Sub Registrar/Revenue Officer or Patwari to prove that the registered sale-deed was executed by the respondent/plaintiff. The only witness produced by him was DW-2 namely Shahbaz Ali who categorically admitted that he was not a witness of registered sale-deed or mutation.
12. It is well settled proposition of law as is held by this Couri in a judgment reported in 1991 CLC 820 (Lahore) (Abdul Aziz versus Muhammad Ashiq and others) while interpreting Article 79 of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984 that where execution of a registered document, was denied by alleged executant, the document would lose sanctity of being presumed to be correct unless it was proved by producing impeccable evidence.
13. The petitioner in the present case has miserably failed to establish that the impugned Sale- Deed No, 600, dated 02.07.2002 was executed by the respondent/plaintiff. Neither the margin.
Witnesses of the disputed registered sale-deed were got examined by the petitioner who were alive and with holding the most important witnesses of the document in itself shatters the entire case of the petitioner.
14. The learned trial Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 84 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984 found that the signatures affixed upon the disputed sale-deed were significantly different from the signatures affixed upon other documents which were the part of the record.
15. Moreover, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence to establish that at the time when disputed registered sale-deed was executed on 02.07.2002, the respondent/plaintiff was in Pakistan.
16. It is established proposition of law that finding on question of law or fact, howsoever erroneous cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC unless such findings suffers from jurisdictional defect or illegality or material irregularity. The privy council while interpreting Section' 115 PPC has laid the following principles in N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar's case PLD 1949 PC 26 as under: "This section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters; (i) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (ii) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction: and (iii) that in exercising jurisdiction the Court has not acted illegality, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is by committing some error or Procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however, profoundly, from the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon question of fact or law."
17. For what has been discussed above, the present revision petition is dismissed in limine.
(R.A.