1. ' Through this single judgment, I intend to dispose of Civil Revisions No. 776 and 775 of 2002 jointly as common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. 2.The precise facts of the case are that Khawaja Abdul Hamid A.I, Respondent No. 1 brought a suit for Declaration No. 230 on 15.12.1994 before the learned trial Court regarding property measuring 10- kanals with the assertion that Qazi Nom' Muhammad present petitioner in connivance with the revenue officials got attested Mutations No. 248, 258, 259, 303, 348 & 349 by practicing fraud at the time when the petitioner was a 'minor'. The said suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants.
3. Qazi Noor Muhammad and Mst.Zahida Bibi/petitioners also brought a suit for declaration along with possession through partition No. 31/95, which was contested by the respondents with the assertion that the alleged executant was minor at the time of attestation of above referred mutations. Both the suits were tried independently and after full fledged trial tried Suit No. 230 filed by Kh. Abdul Hamid A.I, Respondent No. 1 was decreed while Suit No. 31 filed by the present petitioners Qazi Noor Muhammad etc. Was dismissed vide independent judgments and decrees dated 31.03.2001. The present petitioners by filing two Civil Appeals Nos. 62/2001 and 63/2001 challenged the said judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court, which were dismissed vide independent judgments and decrees dated 11.06.2002 passed by the learned lower appellate Court. Being aggrieved, the instant civil revisions were filed by the petitioners.
4. 3.Arguments heard and record perused.
5. 4.Kh. Abdul Hamid A.I, Respondent No. 1 brought a suit before the learned trial Court with the clear cut assertion that at the time of attestation of disputed mutations, he was minor and any alleged transaction executed on behalf of minor was illegal. The copy of guardianship certificate (duly exhibited in both the suit files) issued by the Guardian Judge on 15.06.1994 reveals that application for the appointment of guardian of said plaintiff and other minors was filed and the age of majority of the said plaintiff was reflected as 14.7.1997, whereas the disputed Mutations No. 248, 258, 259, 303, 348 and 349 were got attested in the year 1994. The said judicial record attains strong presumption of truth and the present petitioners failed to rebut the same by producing any tangible evidence.
6. Kh. Abdul Hamid A.I fully proved his stance by producing copy of guardianship certificate. Even perusal of files of both the cases reveals that Qazi Noor Muhammad Petitioner No. 1 only got recorded his solitary statement in the suit for declaration filed by him whereas in other suit filed by Kh. Abdul Hamid A.I, Respondent No. 1 the petitioners produced Ghulam Fareed DW/1 and he himself appeared as DW/2. No other witness including the attesting witnesses of the disputed mutations, Patwari and Revenue Officer, who allegedly sanctioned the disputed mutations were produced to prove the stance of petitioners. The said best evidence was available to the petitioners but the same was with held for the reasons best known to them and both the Courts below rightly drew an adverse inference against the petitioners under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The alleged transactions embodied in the mutations, which might have taken place at some prior point of time also could not be proved by the petitioners by producing any iota of evidence.
7. The petitioners being beneficiary failed to prove the alleged original transactions as well as valid attestation of mutations. Moreover the same were result of fraud and misrepresentation, which were got sanctioned on behalf of the minor, which have been rightly cancelled by the learned Courts below and I concur with the same. Since, the petitioners failed to sustain their ownership in the suit property and both the Courts below have rightly non-suited them to the extent of the suit property. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence available on file concurrently decreed the suit filed by the Respondent No. 1 and dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners after assigning eminent reasons.
8. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments and decrees, which are also not tainted with any misreading or non-reading of the evidence available on the record calling for any interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the scope whereof is narrower and restricted only to the extent of correcting errors of law and facts, if are found to have been committed by the subordinate Courts in the discharge of their judicial functions. Resultantly, both the civil revisions being devoid of any merit are dismissed with costs throughout.