Ali Akbar Qureshi, J:- This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2014 and 01.04.2013, whereby learned Courts below decreed the suit for declaration filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff
2. Shortly the facts as stated in the record, are that respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration, challenging the validity of the sale deeds No.265 and 276 dated 20.04.2002, in respect of land measuring 12-Marla situated in District Rajanpur, against his brother Muhammad Aslam/petitioner, his two nephews and real sisters, clairning himself to be owner in possession of the suit property being one of the legal heirs of deceased Mir Haji Khan, to the extent of 2/9 share.
3. The suit was contested by the petitioners through their written statement, whereas the formal respondents herein, filed their consenting written statement.
4. Learned trail court, Out of controversial pleadings of the parties, framed as many as five issues, recorded evidence of the respective parties and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 18.04.2011, against which an appeal was filed by the respondent No.1 /plaintiff, which was accepted and the case was remanded to learned trial Court for afresh decision. At the time of remanding the case, learned appellate Court also framed additional issues.
5. Learned trial Court in the light of remand order,proceeded with the matter and finally decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 01.04.2013. Against the said judgment and decree, an appeal was filed by the petitioners, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2014. Hence, this civil revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that learned appellate Court decided the appeal on the grounds which were neither agitated nor argued. Next contended, that the sale deeds validly executed in favour of the petitioners but those have been declared illegal without giving any plausible reason.
7. During the course of arguments, the record was perused from where it is found, that it is not denied that the predecessor of the parties, namely, Mir Haji Khan was at the age of 95 when the afore-referred sale deeds Exh.D.4 and Exh.D.5 were executed; only photocopies of the registered sale deeds were submitted during the course of evidence and got exhibited instead of producing the original; neither any application was filed to produce the secondary evidence nor permission was granted by the learned trial Court to produce the photocopy of the sale deeds Exh.D.4 and Exh.D.5 of the registered sale deeds; so much so two attesting marginal witnesses were not produced to meet with the legal requirement of Article 79 of the Qanoon-i-Shahadat Order, 1984.
As recorded by learned trial Court and learned appellate Court, no explanation to this effect was offered, therefore, this is sufficient material to non-suit the petitioners. Even during the course of arguments, when confronted, learned counsel for the petitioners had no answer to it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has already ruled, that except the judicial documents, if the scribe or signatory of the document are not produced, even if the document had been exhibited, cannot be read in evidence. Reliance is placed on Khan Muhammad Yusuf Khan Khattak v. S. M. Ayub and 2 others (PLD 1973 Supreme Court 160). Relevant part is reproduced as under:- "If the case of the respondent was that the appellant had signed the original of Exh. RE. or the certificate appended to it, it must have been proved that it was in the appellant's handwriting, for which no effort whatsoever was made. In the case of Bengal Friends & Co. v. Gour Benode Saha & Co., this Court had expressed itself on this point as follows: "Documents which are not copies of judicial record, should not be received in evidence without proof of signatures and handwriting of persons alleged to have signed or written them."
I am of the view that even if such documents are brought on record and exhibited without objection, they remain on the record as "exhibits" and laithfid copies of the contents of the original but they cannot be treated as evidence of the original having been signed and written by the persons who purport to have written or signed them, unless the writing or the signature of that person is proved in terms of the mandatory provisions of section 67 of the Evidence Act."
8. The other respondents who are real sisters of the petitioner have categorically stated at the time of filing the written statement, that their father, predecessor of the parties, had not executed any sale deeds in favour of the petitioner or their grandson. In fact the petitioner by creating the documents i.e. sale deeds, has tried to usurp not only the share of his brother but also the sisters.
This practice has seriously been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the landmark judgment cited as Ghulam Ali and 2 others Vs. Mst. Ghulam Sa'rwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1).
9. Even otherwise, the concurrent findings on facts as well as on law, if not against the record or result of jurisdictional defect, should not be interfered. T 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 SCM R 161), Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCM R 1469) and Noor Muhammad and others v. Mst. Azmat-eBibi (2012 SCM R 1373).
10. Resultantly, this petition has no force and is dismissed accordingly with no order as to cost.