' This revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. Has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2001 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Ahmedpur East whereby Civil appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was, accepted, judgment and decree dated 21.11.1995 passed by learned Civil Judge, Ahmadpur East was set aside and suit for declaration filed by them was decreed with no order as to costs.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents/plaintiffs Mst. Nazir Bibi and Mst. Roshan Bibi daughters of Jewan Shah instituted a suit for declaration on 03.03.1976 with the assertion that they were owners in possession of the suit property measuring 49-kanals 19- marlas situated in Mauza Qadirpur, Tehsil Rahim Yar Khan, inherited from their mother Mst. Zohran who died in 1972 and that the alleged sale-deed executed in 1973 was a bogus and fictitious document and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiffs.
3. The suit was contested by petitioners/defendants by filing written statement in which they maintained that suit is not competent as said land was purchased from Mst. Zohran for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/- who had already delivered possession of the said land to the petitioners/defendants. It was contended that Mst. Zohran appeared before Sub-Registrar on 30.01.1975 and got executed sale-deed in their favour. Further contended that one Syed Wilayat Hussain. Gillani son of Respondent No. 3 filed a suit for pre-emption challenging said transaction which was dismissed on 28.01.1977.
4. In view of divergent pleadings raised by the parties, learned trial Court framed following issues:- ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land and the registered sale-deed in favour of Defendants No. 1 and 2 is forged and fictitious and ineffective, against the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP ' Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
3. Whether the suit is not property valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisuoCtion? OPD 3-A. Whether the plaintiffs were dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, if so, its effects? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the decree of possession of the suit land as prayed for?
OPP Relief. ' if The parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions.
6. After recording evidence of the parties and hearing arguments from both sides, suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was dismissed with costs by learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.1995.
7. Feeling aggrieved, respondents/plaintiffs preferred an appeal which was accepted by learned Addy. District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan vide judgment and decree dated 26.06.2001 whereby judgment and decree dated 21.11.1995 passed by learned trial Court was set-aside and suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs was decreed in their favour with no order as to costs. Hence, this civil revision.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs/respondents claimed that Mat.
Zohara had died in the year 1972 but they have not proved the death of Mat. Zohra through any documentary evidence; that the petitioners produced registered sale deed on record and also proved through evidence that sale transaction had been made and the vendor had herself appeared before the Sub-Registrar alongwith her son, i.e. Mukhtar Ahmad, Respondent No. 3 and transferred the suit land and had also transferred the possession of the suit land after getting sale consideration and also recorded her statement. Learned counsel submits that the defendants produced marginal witnesses of the registered sale-deed and also produced khasra girdawari to establish that the \suit land was in possession of the Defendants No. 1 and 2, therefore, the suit was rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court but the learned appellate Court has erred in law and facts while accepting the appeal which is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel further submits that the learned lower appellate Court has wrongly presumed that being beneficiary of the registered sale-deed onus lie on them to prove the transaction of sale. It is submitted that the vendor had herself appeared before the Sub-Registrar and got registered the sale-deed and presumption of correctness is attached to registered document and the vendor was properly identified before the Sub-Registrar and the witnesses examined by the respondents fully supported the contention of the respondents.
9. ' On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs supported the impugned judgment of the learned lower appellate Court.
10.
10. Case of the plaintiffs/respondents was that Ms. Zohra had died in the year 1972 and the alleged sale-deed got registered by the Petitioners/Defendants No. 1 and 2 in their favour on 30.1.1975 was fictitious and bogus document and was ineffective on their rights. 'Thus main point in this case to be resolved was as to whether Mat. Zohra died in the year 1972 or she validly entered into a sale agreement in favour of the petitioners and got registered the sale-deed by appearing before the Sub-Registrar on 30.1.1975. The plaintiffs produced Hussain Bukhsh, Naib Tehsildar as P.W.1 who deposed that Mat. Zohra was his neighbour and she had died in the year 1972. He further deposed that in the year 1975 the legal heirs of Mst. Zohra asked him. To know about her land and on verification it was transpired that the said land had been sold. At the time of sale Mst. Zohra was not in this world. It is available on record that during trial the plaintiffs made an application for comparison of the alleged thumb impression of Mat. Zohra on the registered sale-deed (Ex.P.2) with thumb impression on her Nikah Nama (Ex.P.1). The learned trial Court sent both the documents for its comparison and Finger Expert after due process submitted his report Ex.P.3 which was proved by P.W. 2 Sardar All Inspector Finger Expert Bureau, Lahore that he compared both the thumb impressions on the documents after its enlargement and found it to be different from each other.
This evidence of the Finger Expert is conclusive to hold that the, thumb impression on the registered sale-deed was not that of Mst. Zohra and it was a bogus document. The defendants produced Ashiq Ali a marginal witness as DW. 2 who deposed that Mst. Zohra had executed sale-deed in his presence and he had put his signatures as marginal witness. However, during cross-examination he disclosed that Mst. Zohra Bibi was not earlier known to him. Likewise Syed Alamdar Hussain Bokhari, Advocate DW.3 deposed that he had identified Mst. Zohra being vendor. In cross- examination he also frankly conceded that Mst. Zohra was not known to him. However, he knew her son Mukhtar Hussain who had asked him to identify his mother. He disclosed that after a year of registration of sale-deed he received a letter through registered post from said Mukhtar .That I had wrongly identified his mother who had died much, earlier to registration of sale-deed. He further disclosed that he had told this fact to Khuda Bukhsh, lamberdar since it was because of said lamberdar that he had made identification. It appears that this part of the evidence was not properly considered by the learned trial Court. In order to rebut the factum of death of Mst. Zohra in the year 1972, the defendants/petitioners appear to have tried to produce witnesses. However, none of these witnesses claimed that they know Mst. Zohra prior to the registration of sale-deed.
Thus the petitioners/defendants could not prove that Mst. Zohra was alive at the time of registration of sale-deed and she had validly executed the sale-deed and got registered the same before the Sub-Registrar. As against this the plaintiffs/respondents have validly proved on record through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence that Mst. Zohra had died in the year 1972 and thumb impression on the registered sale-deed was net that of Mst. Zohra which was thus a bogus document. The learned lower appellate Court has, therefore, rightly accepted the appeal of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illegality or misreading/non-reading of evidence on the part :of the learned lower appellate Court calling for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. This petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.