1. Petition in revision at the instance of the plaintiff arises out of. a Civil Suit filed by him for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 18-11-1975. Initially, in the result of an adverse finding recorded on issue No.9. Suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 19-12-1983. In appeal, this decision was reversed on 19-1-1985 by Additional District Judge, Jhang and the case was remanded to the trial Court for deciding of it afresh. It was again dismissed on 31-10-1987 by the trial Court which held that agreement to sell was not proved. In appeal, Additional District Judge agreed with this finding and dismissed the appeal on 11--3-1989. Hence, the instant civil revision.
2. Dispute concerns 8 marlas of land bearing Khasra No.40/14/3 comprised in Khata No.8 situate at Mauza Kot Bahadur Shah, Tehsil Shorkot. It was owned by number of persons including Ahmad Shah, Farooq Ahmad Shah and Mohammad lqbal Shah. On 18-11-1975, latter three persons, namely, Ahmad Shah, Farooq Ahmad Shah and Mohammad lqbal Shah acting for themselves and on behalf of some others agreed to sell the aforesaid piece of land to Manzoor Hussain Khan at the sale price of Rs.1,200. Terms of the sale agreement were reduced to writing. i; was marked Ext. Pl. As the sale agreement was not abided, plaintiff sued for its specific performance. To the suit, not only the persons who had agreed to sell this land in dispute but also the persons in whose favour the land in dispute was subsequently transferred by Ext.Dl were also impleaded as defendants. Suit was resisted and genuineness of sale agreement denied. As for defendants 14 to 22, it was submitted that they had purchased the land in dispute from Mahmood Ahmad Shah and others by agreement dated 11-10-1973, had also raised substantial constructions on it and were in its possession. They also submitted that they had no knowledge of the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff.
3. Pleadings gave rise to as many as 12 issues including that of relief. Plaintiff produced two witnesses in addition to recording his own statement as PW.3. Sale agreement Ext. Pl was proved in the statement of Mohammad Amir, Wasiqa Nawees, PW.1 who deposed to its writing by him. Defence was supported by number of witnesses including Altaf Hussain, Deed Writer, DW.2 who proved execution of agreement Ext. D1. Upon review of this evidence, trial Court found against the plaintiff and dismissed his suit. On issues Nos.9 and 10 which related to agreement of sale dated 18-11-1975 and passing of consideration under it was held that the plaintiff had miserably failed to prove that Ext. P1 was executed in his favour by defendants Nos. 1 to 13. It was also held that payment of sale price was not established. In view of the above findings, plaintiff was not found entitled to any releif.
4. Lower appellate Court also agreed with this conclusion. So, both, the Courts are agreed that agreement to sell was not proved and Ext. PI was not a genuine document. It is manifest from the above that the fundamental fact requiring decision in the petition for civil revision is about genuineness of agreement to sell marked Ext.Pl or to put it more clearly, whether the defendants 1 to 13 had ever agreed to sell the land in suit to the plaintiff as given in Ext. Pl. Ahmad Shah, Farooq Ahmad Shah and Mohammad lqbal Shah who were shown to have appended their signatures on Ext. Pl undertook to obtain powers of attorney from their relations whose names had been mentioned in the sale agreement to complete the sale of the land in suit in favour of the plaintiff.
5. Their own share in the land agreed to be sold was 2 marlas only. Rest 6 marlas belonged to others from whom they had undertaken to get powers of attorney for completion of the sale on their behalf. It was not denied that the required powers of attorney were not given. In fact, they are denied to have authorised Ahmad Shah and others to enter into sale agreement on their behalf. 1t was in this view that in appeal filed in the Court below, claim in the suit was confined only to 2 marlas which belonged to Ahmad Shah, Farooq Ahmad Shah and Muhammad Iqbal Shah and the rest of the claim, had to be abandoned. Even at the hearing before this Court, learned counsel frankly admitted that even upon proof of genuineness of agreement to sell, plaintiff could not claim relief beyond 2 marlas of land which was owned by Ahmad Shah, Farooq Ahmad Shah and Mohammad Iqbal Shah. Therefore, the first thing to be seen is whether the plaintiff had succeeded to discharge the burden of proof in regard to execution of agreement to sell dated 18-11-1975.
6. Mohammad Amir, Wasiqa Nawees, PW.1 deposed that he wrote Iqrarnama Ext.Pl at the instance of Ahmad Shah etc. And they appended their signatures on it in his presence. Further, deposed that required entries were also made in the relevant register. In cross-examination, it was admitted that Ahmad Shah etc. Were not known to him. As .For the marginal witnesses, the witness deposed that he could recognise them in case they were to appear before him. Register Wasiqa Naweesi was not produced in Court as the same was stated to be in custody of a Criminal Court in connection with some case. Akbar Ali PW.2 deposed to the sale agreement between the parties. He was neither a witness to the agreement nor was present at the time the bargain was settled Plaintiffs own self- serving statement about sale agreement and payment of sale price was insufficient to advance his case any further. There were two marginal witnesses to Ext, P1. None from them came forward to support its execution. No reason was disclosed for withholding them from the Court. They were the best persons to speak on execution of the agreement to sell Ext. Pl. Their non-appearance in Court to give evidence, in default of plausible explanation, not given in the case, attracted adverse comments. Agreement to sell was written on a stamp paper. Stamp-vendor too was not produced.
7. As for the deed-writer, on his own showing, parties were not personally known to him. To somewhat similar effect, this observation can be extended to the marginal witnesses of the deed also.
8. Therefore, his solitary statement in absence of something more was clearly insufficient to prove genuine execution of the agreement to sell. True, agreement to sell was not required to be attested by witnesses and in this view, provisions in Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat need not have applied. Nonetheless, a document does not prove itself. In case of its denial, party relying upon it must prove its execution in accordance with the modes of proof laid down in the law of evidence. In the instant case, Article 78 of Qanun-e-Shahadat shall apply which provides that if a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written by any person, signature or writing must be proved to be in that person's handwriting. The Article by itself does not lay down any particular mode for proving the signature or the writing. It merely requires the signature or writing to be proved to be in the hand of the person to whom it purportedly belonged. Any mode of proof recognized by law may suffice. However, a litigant is required to observe the rule of best evidence and if the best evidence is available and withheld from the Court, then, it may attract legitimate adverse comments against the proof offered. A forestated rule fastens itself upon the plaintiff. Evidence produced by him does not sufficiently discharge the onus of proof resting upon him. Statement of PW.1 coupled with that of the plaintiff was not considered sufficient by Courts of fact to prove genuine execution of the agreement to sell. I think, the approach of the Courts below to the point at issue was correct and there is no reason to take a different view therefrom. As the plaintiff had failed to prove agreement to sell in his favour, Courts below were justified in non-suiting him. It was not denied that the land in suit was in possession of defendants 14 to 22 who claimed its purchase from its owners. It was also not in dispute that substantial constructions were raised on the land in the shape of shops and houses. Except for a shop which the plaintiff claimed to have constructed and later given to the defendants on licence for which there is no proof, all the shops were constructed by defendants 14 to 22 with their own expense and labour. Admittedly, possession of the land in suit was also with the defendants-purchasers. There was some evidence to prove execution of Ext. D1 and there was no material to cost doubts upon its genuineness. Particularly, when it was shown to have been acted upon by transfer of possession and construction of shops etc. Be that as it may, plaintiff can succeed on the strength of his own case and not upon any alleged weakness in defence of his adversary. Unless he could prove to the satisfaction of the Court that what he stated was true, he could p not be given relief. Looked at thus, agreement to sell relied upon by him having not been proved, his claim for specific performance was rightly dismissed by the Courts below. In this view, no interference in revisional jurisdiction is called for.
9. Accordingly, petition for civil revision is dismissed in limine.
10. M.BA./M-1995/LPe