' This Civil revision arises from the judgment of learned Addl. District Judge, Muzaffargarh, whereby he on 27th June, 1981 dismissed the appeal filed by Allah Bakhsh and others against the judgment and decree dated 2nd April, 1980 by which the Civil Judge II-Class, Kot Addu, had decreed the suit for declaration filed by Mst. Khuishid Bibi respondent/ plaintiff against Allah Bakhsh and others petitioners/defendants.
2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Mst. Khurshid Bibi respondent filed a suit for declaration on 26th September, 1976 against Allah Bakhsh and others seeking declaration to the effect that registered sale deed dated 28th May, 1975 whereby the suit land owned by the respondent was transferred in favour of the petitioners being based on fraud and misrepresentation was void and ineffective as against the right of plaintiff/respondent. The petitioners/defendants raised preliminary objections and denied averments of the plaint and seriously contested the suit. The pleadings gave rise to the following issues :
(1) Whether the suit is under-valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ? If so, what is its effect and what is the correct valuation ? OPD.
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action ? OPD.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit Land ? OPP.
(4) Whether the registered sale deed No, 1002 dated 28th May, 1975 is void, inoperative and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff ? OPP.
(5) Relief.
' The trial Judge found issues Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plantiff/respondent and consequently decreed the suit with costs in favour of the plaintiff/respondent against the present petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed with costs by the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh on 27th June, 1981. Hence, this revision.
3. It appears from the judgment of the learned Appellate Court that issues Nos. 1 to 3 were not challenged by the petitioners and arguments were addressed on Issue No, 4 only. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the finding on issue No, 4 only before this Court. He submits that the onus No, 4 being on the respondent/plaintiff, she did not prove the same satisfactorily. The statement of respondent/plaintiff could hardly be believed. He argues that on 3rd March, 1978, he submitted application to summon the witnesses and on 18th March, 1979 the trial Court summoned them but subsequently closed the evidence of the petitioners without jurisdiction.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, I find that issue No, 4 has been considered properly. Both the Courts below had applied their minds to the factual and legal aspect of the matter. The respondent/ plaintiff appeared as P W 1 and produced copy of registered sale deed Exh. P 1. On the other hand, Allah Bakhsh entered into the witness box and was examined as DW 1. He produced copy of mutation No, 2112 i,e, Exh. D 1. Both the parties having led evidence, in my opinion, the question of onus has become immaterial. So far as the grievance of the petitioners that the trial Judge did not summon the DWs is concerned the learned Additional District Judge while discussing issue No, 4 has said : "The learned counsel for the respondents has conceded that no application was moved for including the names of any person in the list of witnesses as required under Order XVI, rule 1 of the C. P, C., but only the petition was moved for summoning the witnesses. The Court did summon the witnesses at some time but on the day the evidence of the appellants/defendants was recorded it was concluded by the learned counsel for them after the deposition of the appellant/defendant was recorded and the document was led into evidence."
I further find that the petitioner/defendant are brothers inter "se and respondent is their sister. She could easily trust the petitioners as stated, by her. She is a parda nashin lady. On 18th June, 1978 when the mutation was being sanctioned on the basis of the disputed sale deed, her husband objected to it and on 24th June, 1975 she disowned the transaction before the revenue authorities.
Moreover, the petitioners did not produce the attesting witnesses of the sale deed.
5. I am of the opinion that both the Courts have exercised their jurisdiction properly and it is not a fit case for interference under section 115, C. P. C. Dismised in limine.