1. ' A residential house No, 4 in Street No,20, Janak Nagar, Lahore City was evacuee property. It was transferred to. Mst. Ghulam Fatima by the Settlement Department. P.T.O. Was issued to her on 8-7- 1960 and P.T.D. Followed on 28-2-1966. Both these documents were on case file and there was otherwise no dispute about transfer of property to Mst. Ghulam Fatima.
2. ' By a deed executed on 7-12-1975 and registered on 10-12-1975, she sold above house to respondents for a sum of Rs,10,000. Possession of the house was already held by the vendees as its tenants. Mst. Ghulam Fatima died on 22-6-1976. She was issueless. Plaintiffs claimed to be her nephews i,e, brother's sons and filed a civil suit for annulment of the sale of the house by her. Suit was instituted by them on 19-12-1984. It was asserted that Mst. Ghulam Fatima was of unsound health and mind and was incapable of dealing with the property and the sale of the house by her was denied in matter of fact and law. Prior to the institution of civil suit by them on 20-114975, Shadi Muhammad plaintiff No, 1 had brought a petition under Lunacy Act for the appointment of Guardian of the person and estate of Mst. Ghulam Fatima on the ground of her alleged lunacy.
3. District Judge, Lahore entertained the petition made an order for its registration and preservation of status quo regarding her property on 21-11-1975. Upon death of Mst. Ghulam Fatima, the petition was rendered infructuous and was disposed of accordingly without determination of mental health of Mst. Ghulam Fatima.
4. ' Defendants resisted the suit and controverted the averments in it. Number of objections were raised in defence and on merits, it was averred that plaintiffs were not related to Mst. Ghulam Fatima and that the sale of the house by her was bona fide and for valuable consideration. The trial Court framed appropriate issues for determination and thereupon took evidence from the parties.
5. On plaintiffs side, it consisted of a statement of Fazal Din and testimony of Shadi Muhammad co- plaintiff P.W.2. In defence, Ali Muhammad Mukhtar-e-Khas of the defendants appeared as D.W.2 and Khushi Muhammad D.W.1 supported his testimony. Upon review of record, the trial Court found against the plaintiffs on both counts i,e, their relationship to Mst. Ghulam Fatima and factum and validity of the sale of the house by her. Consequently, it dismissed plaintiff's suit on 3-2-1987. In appeal by the plaintiffs, learned Additional District Judge affirmed the decree for dismissing the suit on 24-3-1994. Thereupon, the present revision petition was presented in this Court.
6. ' Learned counsel was heard on merits of the civil revision. With his assistance, existing record was also read. Two points were raised at the hearing. One was about the plaintiffs' relationship to Mst.
7. Ghulam Fatima and second was about her unsoundness of mind and incapacity to sell her house.
8. Upon existing record, civil revision must fail on both counts. P.W.1 gave evidence that Mst. Ghulam Fatima was an opium addict which had materially impaired her mental health and he used to purchase and bring opium for her from a shop in the Bazar. He further deposed that plaintiffs were her nephews. His evidence was not credible. He was not a family relation and had no special means of knowledge about their relationship. His testimony did not conform to the standard of opinion by conduct evidence to establish the disputed relationship. Plaintiffs were displaced persons from Ferozpur in undivided India and the witness was a refugee from Amritsar. As far Mst.
9. Ghulam Fatima, her previous particulars were not forthcoming on the present record. The witness clearly admitted that he had no knowledge of the plaintiffs' ancestory (Khanwada). As regards addiction of opium, his testimony did not inspire confidence. It was a usual type of evidence easily procurable. No other independent person from the locality came forward to depose on mental and physical health of Mst. Ghulam Fatima. P.W.2 made a similar statement. He deposed that Mst.
10. Ghulam Fatima was addicted to opium and was of unsound mind. He further deposed that she was plaintiffs' paternal-aunt.
11. ' Plaintiffs gave no written record of their pedigree to establish their relationship with Mst. Ghulam Fatima and also gave no evidence for treatment of Mst. Ghulam Fatima by a qualified or unqualified Doctor for her alleged disease. A certificate by a Doctor was put on record. Without proof of its correctness and production of its author in the witness-box, it was inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel conceded this. Defence evidence sufficiently rebutted the plaintiffs' evidence on the sound mental health of Mst. Ghulam Fatima and sale of house by her to the defendants. D.W.1 was a marginal witness to the sate-deed. He deposed that Mst. Ghulam Fatima was a willing party to it and that she enjoyed sound health at the time, she sold her house to the defendants. Statement of Ali Ahmad Mukhtar-e-Khas of defendants also supported the defence stance. Mst. Ghulam Fatima was never admitted to a mental Asylum for her treatment nor was she shown to have been treated by a Doctor for her alleged ailment. The effect of alleged addiction to opium on perception of Mst. Ghulam Fatima and impairment of her capacity to deal with the property in a rational manner was not established by sound evidence on record. Furthermore, record from lunacy proceedings, except, an order for status quo was not produced either. Mst.
12. Ghulam Fatima was not shown to have appeared or produced before District Judge nor his remarks, if any, about her mental health were forthcoming on present record. Registration endorsement on the sale-deed by Sub-Registrar was a prima facie proof that the executant was of sound mind. Therefore, it was not proved that Mst. Ghulam Fatima suffered from the defect of lunacy and was incapable to sell her house. As far the sale, it was sufficiently established on record.
13. The contention that in face of a clear status quo order passed in lunacy proceedings on 21-11-1975 by learned District Judge, Lahore, the sale of the house was invalid was also not correct. Firstly, there was no evidence that status quo order was ever served upon the respondents or that they had any knowledge of it. Secondly, even if sale of the house was in contravention of the status quo, it could not be found invalid. The only effect of acting against the status quo order was that the respondents could be visited with penalty under' Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) of Civil P.C. But the sale could not be found void. Cases in Beli Ram and Brothers v. Ram Lal and others AIR 1925 Lah. 644(2), Lal Chand v. Sohan Lal and others AIR 1938 Lah. 220, Mst, Saeeda Akhtar and others v. Lal Din and others PLD 1981 Lah. 623 were in point and supported the proposition. It may be noted at the end that original or certified copy of registered sale-deed was not produced in evidence. Only a photo copy of it was available on record of the trial Court.
14. ' In view of the aforesaid, civil revision is devoid of any merit and is dismissed summarily.