CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.--Undeniably , subject land was titled by Munawar Hussain, respondent No. 1, which was transferred to petitioner No. 1 vide registered sale-deed dated 26.05.1988 (Exh.D1) and implemented in the revenue record vide mutation No. 793, dated 29.09.1988 (Exh.D6). Thereafter through declaratory suit, these were challenged by the former alleging therein that at the time of its execution/attestation, he was minor and these being void ab initio were inoperative upon his rights. The legality of further alienation vide oral gift mutation by the vendee/petitioner No. I in favour of his sons being superstructure of subject documents was also called in question. The suit was contested by the petitioners with the firm stance that plaintif f was major , who was born on 24.12.1970 as per entry of birth register , the copy whereof would be brought on record during course of evidence. The learned trial Court narrowed down the disputed area of facts as well as law by settling issues, which after receiving and appreciating the evidence not only decreed the suit, but appeal of the petitioners also failed, compelling the petitioners to carry the concurrent decrees of learned Courts below to this Court through Civil Revision in hand.
2. M/s. Malik Noor Muhammad Awan and ljaz Khalid Khan Niazi, Advocates for the petitioners emphasized with great vehemence that the respondent-plaintif f was major when the original deal couched in the impugned sale- deed (Exh.D1) was effected. He while drawing attention of this Court towards said document argued that at the time of its registration, the identity card number of the vendor was duly entered therein, which was a solid proof of his majority . He further added that besides other family members of plaintif f, his younger brother , Bashir also transferred his share to petitioner No. 1, who too challenged the alienation of his share on the score of minority by means of independent civil suit, but it was withdrawn, which was another sufficient proof that plaintif f was not minor , but the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective. They next added that Exh.D1, being registered instrument attained presumption of correctness and sanctity was attached to it, whereas through examining positive and direct evidence the original transaction and passing of sale price was also proved, but the learned Courts below by misconstruing it passed the impugned decrees, which being tainted with misreading and non-reading of evidence on record were not sustainable. The learned counsel further pleaded that possession was spontaneously delivered to the vendee/defendant, which was also clear notice to the public-at-large that transaction had been struck, but the suit was instituted after decades and decades, hence both the learned Courts below erred in law to decree a badly time-barred suit.
In contra, M/s. lftikhar Ahmad Chohan and lmran Mushtaq, Advocates on behalf of respondent No. 1 supported the impugned judgments while arguing that no doubt initial onus was upon the plaintif f to prove that he was below the age of majority , who while bringing on record copy of matriculation certification (Exh.P3) issued by Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, character certificate (Exh.P4) put out by the concerned school, copy of service roll (Exh.P5), copy of birth entry (Exh.P10) and through original I.D. card (Exh.P9) shifted the onus towards the beneficiary , who not only failed to rebut it, but while tendering copies of birth certificate (Exh.D2) as well as birth register (Exh.D3), further strengthened that plaintif f was minor at the key day. Lastly , learned counsel for respondent No. 1 emphasized that Exh.D1&6 were void documents and as per settled law, limitation would neither run, nor ef flux of time extinguished the right of ownership of his client/plaintif f.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Admittedly , the impugned sale-deed (Exh.D1) was a registered instrument, but the moment it was challenged and its alleged executant while appearing in the witness-box deposed on oath that he was minor , which was further supported by documentary record (Exh.P3 to 5, 9 & 10), onus was shifted to its beneficiary , who was under obligation not only to prove the bargain and payment of sale price because presumption attached to the registered document goes on to prove merely extent of document having been registered, but it is not a conclusive proof that same has been executed by the competent person, when execution thereof is denied by such person. In the case in hand, exclusive stance of the plaintif f was that he being minor was incapacitated to settle the deal and execute the instrument, whereas in defence, petitioner not only pleaded that plaintif f was major rather also provided his specific date of birth duly recorded in the relevant birth register and further undertook to produce its copy/record at the time of evidence, which admittedly was not examined. Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate, for the petitioners on having been faced to the contents of the written statement to this effect being positive, admitted shortcomings of his client, however , again while inviting attention of the Court towards original sale-deed (Exh.D1), emphasized that during proceedings of its registration, the Attesting Officer particularly entered the I.D. card number of the executant, which could only be issued to a major , hence he was not minor . Although I.D. card number under the name of the vendor was found to be written on Exh.D1, but it was not so on its attested copy (Exh.P1) tendered by the plaintif f. Howe ver, in response Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Chohan, Advocate for the plaintif f highlighted that wrong I.D. card number of the latter was fakely entered on Exh.D1 and to falsify the said entry original I.D. card of the plaintif f was exhibited on suit file as Exh.P9, but the petitioners deliberately did not annex its copy with the file in hand and to elucidate the reality , the original record through special messenger was fetched, which proved that over the original sale-deed (Exh.D1) I.D. card number 289-88- 512681 against the name and signature of Munawar Hussain, plaintif f was entered thereon, but study of original I.D. card (Exh.P9), established that it contained different numbers i.e. 289-76-512681, which not only doubted the veracity of Exh.D1, rather Exh.P9 also confirmed that plaintif f was born on 02.11.1976 being recorded in its relevant column. It is worth to say that national identity card has got its probative value and importance, which fact also finds support from the judgment of the august Supreme Court reported as Mst. Razia Khatoon through Legal Heirs v. Dr. Roshan H.
Nanji and another (1991 SCMR 840). The date of birth referred in identity card was duly endorsed by academic and service record, detail whereof has been duly mentioned in preceding lines, was never rebutted, rather strengthened by the petitioner through their various documents like Exh.D2 & 3, which proved as well that on the day of execution of questioned document (Exh.D1) the executant/plaintif f was minor . It is well-settled by now that mere oral assertion is not sufficient to rebut documentary material. See Syed Akhtar Hussain Zaidi v.
Muhammad Yaqinuddin (1988 SCMR 753). There left no doubt that the plaintif f proved his stance, whereas the beneficiary/petitioners failed to rebut it, hence Exh.D1 being hit by section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872 was void ab initio and law forbids enforcement of such transaction even if minor was to ratify the same after attaining the majority . Reliance can be placed upon reported judgments as The Chairman, District Screening Committee, Lahore and another v. Sharif Ahmed Hashmi (PLD 1976 SC 258), Allah Ditta through Legal Representati ves and others v. Naeem Raza and others (2004 SCMR 982) and Muhammad Ali through L.Rs. and another v.
Manzoor Ahmed (2008 SCMR 1031 ).
5. The further study of Exh.D1 revealed that the vendor , was identified by Muhammad Salehon before the Registering Officer, whereas sale-deed-was attested by the said Muhammad Salehon and Lal Khan being marginal witnesses. The latter was not examined claiming to have already expired, whereas Muhammad Salahon (DW-2) stated that the sale consideration was paid before him to the plaintif f, but he nowhere stated that it was made before the Sub-Registrar , whereas the latter being DW-4 stated that it was paid in his presence. The Petitioner No.1 (DW-1) himself bulldozed his case by stating that the transaction was settled with mother of the plaintif f and consideration was also paid to her, whereas admittedly the mother was not in picture at the time of registration of instrument. His said stance was not only antagonistic to his pleadings, but he impliedly admitted that plaintif f being minor was neither competent to settle the bargain nor sale price was paid to him and that is why all was done by his mother , who in terms of section 361 of the Mohammadan Law, at the most was de facto guardian, but certainly was not competent to settle any transaction on behalf of adolescent and any such act if committed on her behalf was also illegal.
6. The emphasis of Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners that Courts below failed to take notice that the suit was badly time-barred is also not forceful. In the present case, perspicuous stance of respondent No. 1 was that he was minor and Exh.D1 was procured through fraud, but when it is proved so, such a document cannot be perpetuated, which can be assailed at any point of time. Reliance is placed upon the judgments reported as Abdul Rahim and another Vs. Mrs. Jannatay Bibi and 13 others (2000 SCMR 346) and Khair Din Vs. Mst. Salaman and others (PLD 2002 SC 677). Additionally the plaintif fs also prayed for declaring the subject sale-deed as illegal duly entered in the revenue record-of-rights, which afforded cause of action to the plaintif f and adverse entries in the said record, even if are allowed to remain unchallenged, do not necessarily extinguish the right of the party against whom such entry was made. Every fresh entry in the record-of-rights gives fresh cause of action to the plaintif f. This view has already been affirmed by the apex Court in the judgment reported as Wali and 10 others Vs. Akbar and 5 others (1995 SCMR 284). Both the vital facets that the plaintif f was major and the transaction was settled by him were not proved on record by beneficiary to whom the onus was shifted, as such learned Courts below were perfect to pass the impugned decrees.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgments or that these were tainted with misreading or non-reading of evidence on record to call for interference by this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction vested under section 115 of the Code, 1908, therefore, this Civil Revision being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with costs throughout.