NAZEER AHMED LANGOVE, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd July 2020 (hereinafter the "judgment "), passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-III, Quetta (hereinafter the "trial court "), in Civil Suit No. 94/2016. As a result, the petitioner's suit was dismissed. Assailed in Civil Appeal No.47/2020, but met with the same fate, vide judgment and decree dated 18th November 2020 (hereinafter the "impugned judgment"), passed by the learned Additional District Judge-VII, Quetta (hereinafter the "appellate court "). Hence, this petition with the prayer to set aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial and appellate Court and decree the petitioner's suit in his favour .
2. Heard the parties' learned counsel and gone through the record with their assistance.
3. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner (plaintif f) filed a suit for declaration, specific performance of the agreement, cancellation of mutation entries and perm anent injunction against the respondents (defendants) with the averments that Muhammad Wali, son of Imam-ud-d in (predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 13), rented out his house bearing Municipal No.6-2/9, situated at Gul Muhammad Lane, Zonki Ram Road, Quetta (hereinafter the "house-in-question ") to Malik Muhammad Shafi (petitioner's father) in the year 1953. Muhammad Wali died on 25th December 1961, survived by three sons, Aziz Ahmed, Wali Muhammad and Saeed Ahmed; after their demise, respondents Nos.1 to 13 stepped into the legacy of late Muhammad W ali.
After the demise of Malik Muhammad Shafi in the year 1980, the tenancy devolved upon his legal heirs, including the petitioner . However , the latter continued residing in the house-in-question and further executed a rent agreement with Maqbool Ahmed, son of Saeed Ahmed (respondents Nos.1 and 2's predecessor) on 8th February 2001.
The petitioner's case is that he had pufchased the house-in-question from Maqbool Ahmed, vide sale agreement dated 2nd September 2008 in considerati on of Rs.20,00,000/- out of which Rs.10,00,000/- was paid, while mutation in petitioner's name was agreed to be transferred on payment of the remaining amount within one year. Meanwhile, the petitioner continued monthly rent to late Maqbool Ahmed, after his demise (in 2014), to his widow (respondent No.1).
After having acquired knowledge of the transfer of the house-in-question on 23rd September 2014 from the name of late Muhammad Wall to Saeed Ahmed (son); after his demise inherited to Manzoor Ahmed (respondent No.2), vide mutation No.1272 dated 3rd October 2014; who sold it to respondent No.14, vide mutation No.1301, dated 16th November 2015; the petitioner institu ted the instant suit with the averments that by way of mutation No.1269, the legacy of late Muhammad Wali was not distributed amongst his remaining two sons namely Wali Muhammad (respondents Nos.4 and 5's predecessor) and Aziz Ahmed (respondents Nos.6 to 13's predecessor). However , Manzoor Ahmed, brother of Maqbool Ahmed (predecessor of respondents Nos.1 and 2), had knowledge of the sale agreement dated 2nd September , 2008, who instead of transferring the house-in-question in the petitioner's name, fraudulently , got mutated the same in his name and later on sold it to respondent No.14). Hence, this suit.
4. On service of notice, respondents Nos.1, 2, 3 and 14 (defendants) filed their, written statement, wherein they raised various legal objections regarding maintainability of the suit and contested the same on merits.
Out of the parties' pleadings, issues framed, the parties exhausted their respective sides and recorded their statements.
5. After hearing the arguments and evaluating the evidence, the learned trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 23rd July 2020, dismissed the petitioner's suit, assailed in appeal but met with the same fate.
6. The petitioner's contention that he had purchased the house-in-question from Maqbool Ahmed (son of Saeed Ahmed), who admittedly was not the recorded owner of the property . Surprisingly , during Saeed Ahmed's lifetime (the owner of the house-in-question), which too, through an agreement dated 2nd September 2008, proved fake because it surfaced after the demise of Maqbool Ahmed for the first time.
Moreover , if the petitioner had purchased the house-in-question in 2008, how and in which capacity , he continued making payment of rent till 2015.
Mst. Saeeda Maqbool and Mashood Ahmed Awan (respondents Nos.1 and 2) also belied the petitioner's stance; execufed a power of attorney in respondent No. 14's favour , and denied execution or existence of any agreement by their predecessor .
7. A careful perusal of the evidence furnis hed reveals that the petitioner's witnesses did not support his case in true -perspective regarding their presence at the time of alleged execution of the agreement or making payment of any amount to Maqbool Ahmed (respondents Nos.1 and 2's predecessor); there is no iota of evidence regarding payment of a penny in terms of cash, or through cheque.
The institution of the civil suit and denial of relationship by the petitioner was an attempt to extend his illegal stay in the house-in-question by taking the shield of a fake and fabricated document having no legal value.
8. The petitioner's learned counsel was also unable to satisfy that an agreement for the sale of the house-in- question by one co-sharer in the absence of the other co-sharers could validly make out a case for transfer of the entire un-divided property to another person. All circumstances on the factual plane are sufficient to indicate no such transaction or agreement for sale between the petitioner and Maqbool Ahmed (respondents Nos. 1 and 2's predecessor) and that the sale agreemen t was not a genuine document. The petitioner was only a tenant in the house-in-question, and the question of tenancy was under adjudication on the crucial date. There was no question of the specific performance of the alleged agreement. Learned trial court rightly decided all the issues against the petitioner (plaintif f).
The petitioner's learned counsel stressed on the point that no statement of the petitioner was recorded before the learned trial court; however , his stateme nt on Oath (in written form) is available; he did not appear for cross- examination intentionally to make a ground for case's remand; because in the first round of litigation, the case was remanded mainly for cross-examination; such conduct is not appreciable.
9. In the instant case, the petitioner (tena nt) had admitted that he was inducted as a tenant by making payment of rent for many years, could not challenge the title of the landlord (recorded owner of the property) without first surrendering the possession to him, but not followed.
10. Furthermore, the concurrent finding of facts and Law arrived at by two courts below can only be disturbed if this Court concludes that the same are illegal, unlawful based on the misapplicat ion of relevant law provisions; shocking; perverse; artificial and; fanciful. The petitioner failed to point out any, above-referred grounds for interference in the judgments and decree s impugned in the instant case. Accordingly , there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned courts below against the petitioner .
This Court cannot go beyond concurrent findings of fact "unless it can be shown that the finding is on the face of it against the evidence or so patently improbable, or perverse that to accept it could amount to perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice, or if there has been any misapplication or principle relating to appreciation of evidence or finally if the finding could be demonstrated to be physically impossible." No such thing could be brought 9n record to warrant interference by this Court. Thus, the two courts' findings are not open to interference in the limited revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, albeit it may be, to some extent, erroneous on the point of fact and the point of Law , both.
11. The trial court passed a well-reasoned and speaking judgment, upheld by the appellate Court, is based on correct appreciation of the evidence and relevant provisions of the Law; thus, the same is not open to any exception. Hence, maintained. As a result, the petitioner's petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.