1. ' This application under section 115, C.P.C. Has been filed to impugne the judgment passed on 30-4- 1979 by the District Judge, Badin, in Civil Appeal No,25 of 1978, whereby the appeal filed by Applicants Haji Muhammad Sulcman and Mehmood has been dismissed.
2. ' The facts giving rise to the present application briefly stated are that respondents Ghulam Muhammad, Jam Khan and Allah Bachayo had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of certain agricultural lands against the two present applicants in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. Their suit was registered as 1st Class Suit No,154 of 1974 in that Court.
3. The plaintiffs claimed that agricultural land in all measuring 79-11 Acres, situated in the Deh Khanah, Tapo Khairpur, Taluka Tando Bago, as described in Schedule 'A' annexed to the plaint, was purchased by them through two registered sale-deeds executed on 16-1-1971 by Haji Muhammad Suleman, one of the two defendants. The land purchased by them originally belonged to one Allah Julio. The land was mutuated in the record of rights in their names on the basis of the two sale- deeds. The necessity for filing the suit arose to them as Mahmood, the second defendant in the suit, had fraudulently entered into a house deal with Haji Muhammad Suleman, the defendant No,1 in the suit, claiming to have exchanged his land with the land of Haji Muhammad Suleman that was already sold to the plaintiffs.
4. ' The defendants in the suit denied the assertions made by the plaintiffs and claimed that Allah Bux Pitafi was co-owner in the land and he used to manage the land on behalf of defendants. Haji Muhammad Suleman, the defendant Nol in the suit, had fallen ill had lost his eye sight. He had, therefore, allowed Allah Bux to look after the land. A dispute arose over the settlement of accounts with Allah Bux, which was settled by Nek Mards whereby Allah Bux had to pay Rs,39,000 to defendant No,1 and he obtained certain signatures on various documents.
5. ' On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Judge settled the following issues:-
(1) Whether defendant No,1 alone was the owner of the agricultural land measuring 79-11 Acres of land situated in Deh Khanah, Tapo Khairpur, Taluka Tando Bago, District Badin described in Schedule `A' attached with the plaint?
(2) Whether after the sale of the disputed land by Allah Julio to defendant No,1, the possession and management remained under the control of Allah Julio?
(3) Whether Allah Bux Pitafi was Benami for the plaintiff who used to take disputed land on lease?
(4) Whether defendant No,1 vide two agreements of sale-deed dated 16-1-1974 sold the land to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs,39,000.
(5) Whether the possession of Allah Bux was as a co-sharer or as a lessee Benami for the plaintiff?
(6) Whether defendants Nos,1 and 2 have any right or interest in the disputed land?
(7) Whether defendant No,1 after sale/transfer of the land to the plaintiff has fraudulantly entered in bogus deal with defendant No,2. If so what would be its effect?
(8) Whether the plaintiffs are in cultivating possession of the land and have made huge investment to improve the land?
(9) Whether this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction in the present matter?
(10) Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of C.P.C., Specific Relief Act, M.L.Rs, 61 and 115?
(11) Whether the suit has been properly stamped and valued?
(12) What should the decree be?
6. ' The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective issues. The trial Judge after considering the evidence and hearing the parties decreed the suit with costs.
7. ' Due to creation of a new District, Badin, the suit was transferred to Senior Civil Judge Badin, who had ultimately decided the suit.
8. ' Haji Muhammad Suleman and Mehmood, the defendants in the suit, being aggrieved by the judgment and the decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge Badin, filed an appeal before the District Judge Badin which was rejected by him on 30-4-1979. The applicants by this application under section 115 Civil Procedure Code have impugned the judgment passed in appeal.
9. ' Mr. G.M. Qureshi, Advocate appearing for the applicants contended that the two Courts below have decided the suit by misreading evidence on record, that applicant No,1 was not examined in the suit and that wrong land was sold. He further contended that the sale-deeds Exh.53 and Exh.54 were not proved, because the attesting witnesses were not examined and the exchange of land made between the two applicants was wrongly disbelieved.
10. ' Mr. Naseem Farooqui contended that no infirmity has been pointed out by the learned Advocate for the applicants concerning. The two judgments recording concurrent findings to enable this Court to disturb such findings in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. He relied on cases published in 1987 SCM R 1349 and 1987 CLC 1788.
11. ' Haji Muhammad Suleman, Applicant No,1 herein according to this recorded share owned 59-5 Acres of land out of the total area of 98-72 Acres in one piece of land and 20-6 Acres out of total area of 46-15 Acres in another piece. He through the two registered sale-deeds Exh.53 and Exh.54 sold the land owned by him to the three respondents, whose names were mutated in the Record of Rights as well. The remaining share in the two pieces belonged to co-sharers of original owner Allah Jurio. The three respondents herein filed the suit as the applicants herein tried to frustrate the two sale-deeds as they contrived to carry out the exchange of their" lands as stated above. The applicant No,1 who had conveyed his land to the three respondents by registered sale-deeds preferred not to examine himself with the result that no evidence was brought on record to cast even a shadow of doubt on the genuineness of the registered sale-deeds. The applicant No,2 admitted in his cross-examination that he had purchased the shares in land belonging to other co-sharers of Allah Julio. It clearly shows that after such purchase he tried to consolidate his holding by throwing out the respondents from the land. The applicant No,1 did not file any suit for cancellation of the sale-deeds executed by him in favour of respondents. Exchange of land between the two applicants as claimed by them was arranged long after the applicant No,1 had divested himself of his said land. He, therefore, had no land to offer in exchange of land of applicant No,2. Besides exchange of land can only be completed in a manner provided for the transfer of such property by sale as required by sections 118 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In the present case exchange was claimed on the basis of unregistered document.
12. ' Both the Courts below after carefully appreciating the evidence produced by the parties have recorded concurrent findings in the case and no exception can be taken to such findings. Mr. G.M.
13. Qureshi, Advocate appearing for the applicants, was not able to substantiate grounds urged by him.
14. ' For the foregoing reasons. I had by my short order passed on 4-3-1990 dismissed this revision application with no order as to costs.