1. This civil second appeal is at the instance of defendants and it arises out of a suit filed against them for setting aside a consent decree dated 21-10-1963 in Civil Suit No. 851/1963. Trial Court decreed the suit on 8-4-1969, and, an appeal from it taken to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat failed on 15-11-1969. Material thing to be considered would be, whether Ditta son of Dina and his sister Mst. Raji sold the land; received consideration for it; transferred possession of the land; appeared before the Civil Court and confessed judgment against them on 21-10-1963.
2. Relevant facts are: Land measuring 85 Kanals, 16 Marlas, in village Dharekhan Khurd of Tehsil Phalia, in District Gujrat was owned by Ditta and Mst. Raju. Lala, Sardara and Shah Muhammad sons of Ghulam Muhammad claimed an oral sale of the above land in their favour, and instituted a civil suit against Ditta and Mst. Raju in the Civil Court at Mandi Baha-ud-Din, for affirmation of the oral sale and confirmation of possession on it and also the relief for perpetual injunction for stopping interference with their possession on the land-in-dispute by the defendants to the suit. Material averments in the plaint were that the defendants Ditta and Mst. Raju orally sold the land-in- dispute, a month ago for a sum of Rs.10,000 and upon receipt of the sale-consideration had transferred possession of the land and agreed for attestation of the mutation. It was alleged that the defendants were putting off the attestation of the mutation, and, therefore the suit was filed against them. The plaint was drafted on 21-10-1963, and presented to the Civil Court at Mandi Baha-ud-Din, on the same day. It came up before the Civil Judge on the same day who after usual formalities by a Court-official directed registration of the suit and ordered summons to issue the defendants for 18-11-1963. Presumably, soon thereafter, an application was presented to the trial Court by the plaintiffs for revival of the suit. It was stated in it that the suit was compromised and prayer was made for its disposal in accordance therewith. The trial Court made an order for hearing of the suit on the same day. Thereupon, the defendants to the suit presented a concessional written statement through their counsel. Written statement was thumb-marked by the defendants' and signed by their counsel. Thereafter, the trial Court recorded separate statements of Ditta and Mst. Raju, wherein they agreed for making of a decree in the suit against them. After their statements were recorded, counsel for the plaintiffs produced copy of Jamabandi Exht. P.1. Upon this material, the trial Court passed a consent decree, on 21-10-1963, in favour of the plaintiffs.
3. On 22-12-1966, Ditta and Mst. Raju brought a civil suit for setting aside of the consent decree passed on 21-10-1963. They denied the sale of land in dispute by them to Lala etc., and receipt of any consideration in respect of it from them. They also denied their appearance before the Civil Court in the suit filed by Lala and others and also filing of concessional written statement by them.
4. It was alleged that they were impersonated by fake persons at the instance of the plaintiffs in the suit and consent decree was obtained by practising fraud on them and the Court. Defendants resisted the suit for upholding of the sale and consent decree respecting sale of the land in dispute in their favour. They also objected to the insufficiency of court-fee paid upon the plaint. On 3-5- 1967, following two preliminary issues were framed by the trial Court to resolve the controversy regarding court-fee:--
(1) Whether the suit has been correctly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPP.
(2) If issue No.l is not proved, what is the correct value? OPP.
5. On 12-9-1967, counsel for the defendants stated that only a court-fee of Rs.15 was required to be paid on the plaint. Thereupon, the deficiency was met and preliminary issues were resolved in favour of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, following issues on merits were settled for determination:--
(1) Whether the disputed decree is based upon fraud and is illegal and inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP.
(2) Whether the suit is within time ?OPP.
(3) Relief.
6. Parties claimed no other issue arising for decision from their pleadings.
7. On behalf of the plaintiffs, A.G. Pasha, a Finger-Print Expert gave evidence that there was dissimilarity in the thumb-prints of the plaintiffs on the written statement and Vakalatnama filed in the suit brought by Lala and others with their thumb-prints on the plaint of the suit instituted on 22- 12-1966. Ditta appeared as P.W.
2. He denied sale of the land in dispute to Lala and others and receipt for its consideration from them. He also denied his appearance in Court for making of a concessional statement before it. The witness deposed that the land in dispute was still in his possession. Mst.Raju did not opt to enter the witness-box On behalf of the defendants, A.R. Pasha, a Finger-Print Expert gave evidence as D.W.1. His statement supported the stance of the plaintiffs. In his opinion, the relevant thumb-prints were also dissimilar. Though, he appeared for the defendants and gave evidence against them but the defendants did not cross-examine him with the leave of the Court. D.W. -2 was Ch. Fateh Jang, Advocate of Mandi Bahauddin. He deposed that he was engaged by the defendants Ditta and Mst. Raju in the Suit No.851/1963 and they had thumb-marked Jawabdawa and Vakalatnama in his presence. In cross-examination, the witness deposed that he was not personally acquainted with them. Atta Muhammad and Bahadur gave evidence of oral sale of the land by Ditta and receipt of sale consideration by him. Similar was the statement by Lala defendant in the suit.
8. Evidence respecting sale of land; payment of consideration and appearance in Court by the written statement and Vakalatnama were dissimilar with the thumb-prints appearing on the plaint in the present suit. Oral evidence to support sale and passing of consideration was unreliable.
9. Though, the appellants claimed actual possession on the land in dispute yet their own evidence and the entries in the revenue record negated it. On record, it was found that bitta was still in possession of the land-in-dispute and had not parted it in favour of the appellants. It appeared to be a clear case of foul play by the appellants for riddance of the valuable property of the respondents. There was neither sale nor payment of consideration for it to the respondents. Their appearance and participation 'in proceedings culminating in a consent decree were shrouded in doubt and mystery. Undue hurry smacked of extraordinary conduct attracting serious doubts about it. Upon review of the record, doubts were further strengthened. In my opinion, lower Courts rightly read the record and arrived at correct and just conclusion. There is no scope for taking of a different view from them. Second appeal is dismissed. Since the respondents did not appear at the hearing, parties shall bear their own costs. Records be returned.