SHAHID KHAN, J.- The petitioner has called in question the judgment & decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Khwazakhela, Swat, dated 18.02.2021, whereby, his appeal was dismissed, and consequently, the judgment & decree, dated 07.03.2020, of the learned Civil Judge-I, Khwazakhela, Swat, in respect of the subject house, detailed in the head-note of the plaint, was maintained.
2. In essence, the petitioner/plaintiff approached the learned trial Court through a /is for declaration coupled with permanent/mandatory injunction and specific performance of the agreement, dated 25.03.2015, to the effect that he has purchased the subject house, detailed in the head-note of the plaint, from respondent/defendant No. 2, vide sale deed bearing No. 371, dated 25.03.2015, at a sale consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-, as such, he is its exclusive owner and that the respondents/ defendants have no right to deny it or interfere in the same. He has also prayed for cancellation of mutations and sale deeds, if the respondents/ defendants have prepared/executed in respect of the subject house coupled with a prayer for recovery of damages @ Rs. 10,00,000/-
3. The subject claim was contested by the respondents/defendants by filing their written statement. After recording evidence, far & against followed by hearing of learned counsel for the parties, the claim of petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment & decree, dated 07.03.2020, followed by the judgment & decree of the learned appellate Court, dated 18.02.2021, hence, the subject Revision Petition.
4. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record scanned through with their valuable assistance.
5. The record made available before this Court would transpire that the petitioner/plaintiff claimed the subject house to be his exclusive ownership on the basis of sale deed, dated 25.03.2015. The contention of the petitioner/plaintiff is that he had purchased the subject house from the respondent/defendant No. 2 in presence of witnesses at the payment of sale consideration of Rs.
30,00,000/-, wherein, he had paid Rs. 12,00,000/-to respondent/defendant No. 2 at the time of execution of the said deed, followed by payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 18,00,000/-, on 25.09.2015, in presence of witnesses, Ayub and Muhammad Qayum. To prove his case, he himself appeared as PW-1 and produced seven witnesses as PW-2 to PW-8. In his examination-in-chief, the petitioner/plaintiff reiterated his stance as taken in the plaint, however, in his cross- examination, at one place, he stated that he had paid total sale consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/- to the respondent/defendant No. 2 in presence of witnesses, Ayub, Muhammad Qayum but at another place, he stated that he had paid the sale consideration as per the sale deed (Ex PW 1/1).
He also stated that he paid Rs. 12,00,000/- in Tehsil Khwazakhela while paid the remaining amount of sale consideration in the clinic of respondent/defendant No. 1, however, at that time no one was present. As such, he himself negated his stance as in para-3 of the plaint, he stated that he paid the remaining amount of sale consideration in presence of witnesses, Ayub and Muhammad Qayum but in his cross-examination, he stated that no one was present at that time. He further stated that he had paid Rs. 12,00,000/- in presence of marginal witnesses of the sale deed (Ex PW 1/1). Though, he produced marginal witnesses of the said deed as PWs-2 & 6 but PW-2 in his cross- examination negated the version of petitioner/ plaintiff, stated that in his presence, no payment has been made. Whereas, PW-6 though stated in his cross-examination that in his presence, the petitioner/ plaintiff paid Rs. 12,00,000/- to the respondent/ defendant No. 2, while fixed six months time for payment of the remaining amount but nowhere it has been mentioned that when, where and at which time, the petitioner/plaintiff paid Rs. 12,00,000/- to the respondent/defendant No. 2.
6. In view of the above, the petitioner/ plaintiff failed to prove execution of the subject sale deed followed by payment of sale consideration as he himself stated that he paid partial sale consideration to the respondent/defendant No. 2 in presence of marginal witnesses of the said deed, which his witness (PW-2) negated and moreso, to the extent of payment of the remaining amount of sale consideration, he produced no evidence, which could support his contention.
7. The record would also speak loud & clear that the subject sale deed is unregistered one, which could not create any title in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff as it was to be registered for the reason that value of the same was more than Rs. 100/-. Under section 17, Registration Act, 1908, any instrument of transfer which involves a consideration of one hundred rupees and above has to be registered or otherwise u/s. 49 of the ibid Act, it could neither create nor extinguish any right in favour of its beneficiary. When seen on the above touchstone, the petitioner/plaintiff has not acted in a manner, as required by law, as such, the alleged sale deed could not be treated as a valid one and on this score, his suit was liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on the case of Abdul Kalam and another v. Muhammad and 6 others reported as 2015 CLC 1004 [Peshawar], wherein, this Court held as under: "Quite apart from this, the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff being unregistered document was registerable under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, as the value of the property was more than Rs. 100, reduced into writing, which amounts of Rs. 3,75,400/-and, as such, being unregistered deed creates no title in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. The document required to be registered under the law, would have no effect in case of its non-registration and reliance cannot be placed upon it in accordance with law."
8. Other than it, the respondents/defendants have stated in their written statement that the petitioner/plaintiff was their tenant and was residing in the subject house on the basis of rent deed, dated 01.02.2015, however, when he failed to comply with the terms & conditions of the rent deed, followed by non-payment of monthly rent, the respondent/defendant No. 1 filed an eviction petition against him before the learned Rent Controller, Khwazakhela, Swat. In this regard, they also produced the aforesaid rent deed in their evidence as EX DW 1/2, which could not be rebutted by the petitioner/plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid eviction petition has been decreed in favour of the respondent/defendant No. 1, vide judgment/decree, dated 29.09.2022, of the learned Rent Controller, Khwazakhela, Swat, followed by the judgment/decree, dated 23.05.2023, of the learned appellate Court. Against the aforesaid judgments/ decrees, the petitioner filed the connected W.P No. 867-M/2023, which has also been dismissed vide a separate order of today.
9. To conclude, it is observed that the learned trial Court coupled with the learned appellate Court, in view of proper appraisal of the facts & circumstances and the evidence so recorded, have arrived at the just conclusion of the matter in issue, as such, the impugned concurrent findings of the learned Courts below do not need any interference. Reliance is placed on the case of Nasir Ali v. Muhammad Asghar reported as 2022 SCMR 1054, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held: "Section 115, C.P.C empowers and mete out the High Court to satisfy and reassure itself that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction and in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally or in breach of some provision of law or with material irregularity or by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied that aforesaid principles have not been unheeded or disregarded by the Courts below, it has no power to interfere in the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or an illegality of the nature in the judgment which may have material effect on the result of the case or if the conclusion drawn therein is perverse or conflicting to the law. Furthermore, the High Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent conclusions arrived at by the courts below while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C."
Similarly, in the case of Salamat Ali and others v. Muhammad Din and others reported as PLD 2022 Supreme Court 353, it was observed: "A revisional Court cannot upset a finding of fact of the Court(s) below unless that finding is the result of misreading, non-reading, or perverse or absurd appraisal of some material evidence.
The revisional Court cannot substitute the finding of the Court(s) below with its own merely for the reason that it finds its own finding more plausible than that of the Court(s) below."
Likewise, in the case of Muhammad Sarwar and others v. Hashmal Khan and others reported as PLD 2022 Supreme Court 13, it was also held that: "It is well settled exposition of law, deducible from plethora of dictums laid down by superior Courts that section 115, C.P.C. empowers and meted out the High Court to satisfy and reassure itself that the order of the subordinate court is within its jurisdiction; the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction and in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally or in breach of some provision of law or with material irregularity or by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied that aforesaid principles have not been unheeded or disregarded by the Courts below, it has no power to interfere in the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law."
In Khudadad v. Sved Ghazanfar Ali Shah alias S. Inaam Hussain and others reported as 2002 SCMR 933, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the High Court has a narrow and limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent rulings arrived at by the Courts below while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C. Relevant findings of the august Court are reproduced as under: "The High Court has a narrow and limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent rulings arrived at by the Courts below while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C. These powers have been entrusted and consigned to the High Court in order to secure effective exercise of its superintendence and visitorial powers of correction unhindered by technicalities which cannot be invoked against conclusion of law or fact which do not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the court but confined to the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or an illegality of the nature in the judgment which may have material effect on the result of the case or the conclusion drawn therein is perverse or contrary to the law, but interference for the mere fact that the appraisal of evidence may suggest another view of the matter is not possible in revisional jurisdiction, therefore, the scope of the appellate and revisional jurisdiction must not be mixed up or bewildered."
10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the subject Revision Petition is devoid of any merit, as such, it is hereby dismissed.