' ATIR MAHMOOD, J.---This civil revision is directed against impugned judgment and decree dated 19-9-2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Arifwala who dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against judgment and decree dated 31-1-2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class II, Arifwala whereby the suit filed by the petitioners for specific performance of contract along with perpetual injunctive relief was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of contract regarding agricultural land measuring 42 kanals situated in Khewet No, 134/135 Khatooni No, 369, of Chak No, 207, Tehsil Arifwala, District Pakpattan, on the basis of agreement to sell dated 6-9-1968 for a total consideration of Rs,6500. It is alleged that at the time of agreement Rs,1000 had been paid as down payment whereas the remaining amount of Rs,2000 had been paid on 10-8-1969, Rs,1000 was paid on 21-7-1970. Thereafter, the petitioners paid Rs,1100 whereas the remaining amount of Rs,1400 was made on 9-4-1992 in presence of witnesses and possession of the property was delivered in continuation of the said agreement,
3. The suit was contested by the respondents vehemently by filing written statements. Keeping in view divergent pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed following issues:-- "(i) Whether the defendant entered into agreement to sell of the suit property with the plaintiff and received the whole amounts? OPP
(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance as prayed for? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file this suit'? OPD
(iv) Whether the defendant never entered into agreement to sell? OPD
(v) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law and barred by law of limitation? OPD
(vi) Whether suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed? OPD.
(vii) Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs in case of dismissal of the suit? OPD.
(viii)Relief."
4. After recording oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, learned trial court dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 31-1-2012. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioners filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Arif wala vide judgment and decree dated 19-9-2012. Hence this civil revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that both the judgments and decrees are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that learned courts below have not applied their judicious mind while passing the impugned judgments and decrees; that the judgments and decrees of learned courts below have been passed without giving cogent and substantial reasons; that both the courts below have violated the law while passing the impugned judgments and decrees as laid down in the case reported as Zar Wali Shah v. Yousaf All Shah and others 1992 SCM R 1778; that both the courts below failed to consider the fact that the agreement dated 6-9- 1968 was executed before the enactment of Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance, 1984, as such, provisions of the Ordinance ibid were not applicable; that both the courts below failed to consider this fact; that since agreement to sell is 30 years old document which is supported by possession of the land, the presumption towards its genuineness can be drawn in view of Article 100 of the Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984; that findings of learned courts below on issue No,1 are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence and also non-application of judicious mind, therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees are liable to be set aside.. In support of his assertions, he has relied upon the law laid down in cases reported as Mrs. Mussarat Shaukat All v. Mrs. Safia Khatoon and others 1994 SCM R 2189 and Allah Dad and 3 others v. Dhuman Khan and 10 others 2005 SCM R 564.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and also gone through the record.
7. The core issue in this case is as to whether the alleged agreement to' sell dated 6-9-1968 (Exh.P1) was executed in accordance with law and as to whether the plaintiffs have been able to prove the same through cogent evidence.
8. In order to prove the agreement to sell, plaintiffs besides plaintiff No,3 produced Mubarak Ali as P.W.2 and Muhammad Sharif as P.W.3. In order to prove the factum of payment, the plaintiffs have annexed with the plaint receipts of payments dated 9-4-1971 (Exh.P2), 11-4-1971 (Exh. P3), 4-5-1971 (Exh . P4), 9-4-1972 (Exh . P5) whereas receipt of payment of Rs,1000 has also been shown on the agreement to sell.
9. Plaintiff No,3 Mirza Iftikhar Baig while appearing as P.W.1 states that the agreement to sell was not written in his presence, therefore, he does not know anything about it and has knowledge only what was told by his father. He further states that possession of the suit property lies with Mubarak Ali who is a tenant under the defendants.
' Whereas Mubarak Ali when appeared before the court as P.W.2 deposed that he cultivated the suit land as a tenant of P.W.1 Mirza Iftikhar Baig. He deposes that he is unaware of any dispute between the parties and except payment of Rs,1400, he has no knowledge of payment made to the defendants. He states that no receipt of payment was written. He also states that the agreement was not written in his presence. Muhammad Sharif was produced as P.W.3. According to him, receipt of payment of Rs,1100 was written whereas no receipt of payment of Rs,1400 was written. He also could not recall the date of payment. He also states that neither agreement to sell was written in his presence nor he is a witness of the same.
10. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the disputed agreement was more than 30 years old and in view of provisions of Article 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, presumption of truth is attached therewith, therefore, it cannot be brushed aside. I am afraid that this contention does not hold water in view of the dictum laid down in case reported as 2005 SCM R 564 (Allah Dad and 3 others v. Dhuman Khan and 10 others), produced by learned counsel for the petitioners himself. Relevant portion from the said judgment is reproduced below:-- "10. The principle underlined in Article 100 is that if a document 30 years old or more is produced from proper custody and on its face it is free from suspicion, the Court may presume that it has been signed or written by the person whose signatures appear on it and that it was duly executed and attested by the executant. The age of document, its un suspicious character, its custody and other circumstances are foundation to raise a presumption of its execution and if a document is proved more than thirty years old, it is admissible in evidence without formal proof but if the genuineness of such a document is disputed, it is the duty of the Court to determine the question of its genuineness and true character. Therefore, the rule is that Court may raise a presumption of existence and execution of a document which is more than 30 years old but it is not necessary that by raising such presumption Court must presume the contents of the document to be true and in such a case, Court may call the parties to produce the evidence. However, the presumption of genuineness of a document is rebuttable and the question whether such a presumption can be raised or not is a question of law which can be raised at any stage. " (Underline is mine)
11. From bare perusal of the evidence produced by the petitioners-plaintiffs, it comes crystal clear that there are material contractions in the statements of the P.W.s as P.W.1 Mirza Iftikhar Baig states that the possession of the suit property lies with Mubarak Ali as a tenant of defendants whereas Mubarak Ali states that he is a tenant under P.W.1 Mirza Iftikhar Baig. All the P. Ws. State that the agreement to sell was not made in their presence nor they are witnesses of the same. P.W.2 and P.W.3 also state that the receipts of payment except one were not reduced in writing but the plaintiffs have produced four receipts of payments as Exh. P2, Exh.P3, Exh.P4 and Exh. P5 in addition to receipt of payment shown on back side of alleged agreement to sell meaning thereby the receipts have been managed by the plaintiffs themselves just to support their false claim illegally and unlawfully. When the witnesses produced by the plaintiffs themselves do not support the version of the plaintiffs, it can safely be concluded that the plaintiffs could not prove their case. There are concurrent findings of law and fact against the petitioners which are immune from interference by this Court except when some gross illegality or irregularity is floating on the surface of the judgments which could not be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners. The impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned courts below are in consonance with law. I see no reason to interfere therewith.
12. For what has been discussed above, this civil revision has no merit. The same is dismissed in limine.