ABDULLAH BALOCH, J.---This judgment disposes of instant civil revision petition filed by the petitioner Muhammad Hanif against the judgment and decree dated 15th June 2017 (hereinafter referred as, "impugned judgment and decree") passed by the learned Qazi Panjgur (hereinafter referred as, "the trial Court") and judgment and decree dated 28th September 2017 (hereinafter as, "impugned judgment and decree") passed by the learned Majlis-e-Shoora, Panjgur (hereinafter referred, "the appellate Court"), whereby the suit and appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts arising from the instant petition are that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, injunction and cancellation of sale deed executed between the respondents/defendants Nos.1 and 2 with the averments that the suit land was purchased by the petitioner/ plaintiff, 33 years ago on 1st May 1982 from Muhammad Noor, Rahem Dil, Dur Bibi, Noor Malik sons and daughters of Karam on sale consideration of Rs,20,000/- through an executed sale deed.
3. The suit of the petitioner described the boundaries of the suit land and further submitted that some portion of land of petitioner was sold out by respondent No,2 to respondent No,1 illegally and unlawfully without the consent and knowledge of petitioner, whereupon the respondent No,1 has started encroachment, as such, on coming to know the petitioner approached the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner, but all in vain. Consequently, above civil suit was filed.
4. The suit of the petitioner was contested by the private respondents on legal as well as on factual grounds by means of filing written statement, wherein vehemently denied the claim of the petitioner.
5. Out of the pleading of the parties the learned trial Court framed as many as following issues; " 1 . Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable legal objection 1 and 2 is raised by the defendants in the written statement?"
2. Whether the plaintiff purchased the disputed property through sale deed?
3. Whether the disputed property description given in the plaint is the property of the plaintiff?
4. Whether the defendant (1) purchased the disputed property from the defendant (2) and started construction there upon?
5. Whether the defendant illegally encroached onto the property of the plaintiff?
6. Whether the disputed property is the property of the state (Revenue department)
7. Relief?"
6. Thereafter the parties have produced their relevant evidence. After hearing the parties the suit of the petitioner was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal against the said judgment and decree, which was also met the same fate.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below suffers from misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the petitioner has produced oral as well as documentary evidence with regard to his ownership, but both the Courts below were failed to appreciate this aspect of the case. On rebuttal, the respondents have failed to produce any documentary evidence with regard to their ownership, but the learned trial Court given weight to evidence of respondents, which at all are not admissible under the law; that the judgments and decrees of Courts below also suffers from material illegalities and irregularities, which are not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record minutely which reveals that the petitioner/ plaintiff has claimed to be owner of the disputed land, which was allegedly purchased by from Muhammad Noor, Rahm Dil, Noor Bibi, Dur Malik sons and daughter of Karam on sale consideration of Rs, 20,000/- on 1st May 1982 and in this regard also executed a sale deed.
9. To prove its case the petitioner/ plaintiff produced as many as three PWs and also recorded his own statement, but it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has failed to produce any marginal witness of the alleged sale deed as required under section 79 of C.P.C. and even otherwise, failed to exhibit the alleged sale deed to be taken into consideration and also failed to produce any of the owner from which the land in question was purchased by the petitioner.
However, perusal on record reflects that the PWs so produced by the petitioner are neither the marginal witness of the sale deed nor the sale proceedings have been carried out in their presence. While the alleged sale deed has not been attested by any Oath Commissioner or Notary Public to verify the contents of sale deed.
10.In view of the above, the petitioner/ plaintiff has failed to prove its case through cogent, inspiring evidence to believe that the suit land was infact purchased by him from the owner of the suit land. Even otherwise, the suit land is unsettled land and could not be presumed to be purchased by the petitioner from someone else without any documentary evidence.
11.The perusal of judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below does not suffer from any misreading and nonreading, material illegality and irregularity to be interfered by this Court and the error so committed by the learned trial Court was rectified by the appellate Court, as such, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality and irregularity, misreading and non-reading in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, which are accordingly maintained and the petition is devoid of merit and here by dismissed in liminee.