' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---Muhammad petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 14-2-1993 whereby his revision petition against the judgment of the Additional District Judge decreeing the suit of Mst. Rehmoon in appeal by reversing the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts are that Mst. Rehmoon predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she was the owner of the suit land and sale-deed dated 17-7- 1980 allegedly executed by her in favour of Ghulam Muhammad (father of the petitioner herein) was illegal, void, fraudulent, collusive and ineffective on her rights. Permanent injunction restraining the defendant to claim ownership of the suit land was sought as consequential relief. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit vide his . Judgment dated 21-5-1991 holding that registered sale- deed dated 17-7-1980 was a valid document. This judgment was challenged in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge who allowed it vide judgment dated 3-1-1993 and reversing the finding of the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit in favour of the respondents herein, the successors-in-interest of Mst. Rehmoon. A revision petition filed by the petitioner herein in the High Court also failed vide judgment dated 14-2-1993. Hence this petition.
3. The reasons which weighed with the learned Judge in chambers for dismissing the revision petition were that Mst. Rehmoon was an illiterate lady of advanced age and there was no evidence on the record to show that independent advice was available to her at the time of the alleged sale.
It was further observed that mere recital of payment of sale price in the sale-deed was not sufficient to hold that sale price was actually paid. The learned Judge also found that the evidence produced by the petitioner regarding payment of sale price was discrepant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Appellate and Revisional Courts have misread the evidence and drawn incorrect conclusions therefrom.
' After hearing the learned counsel and having gone through the evidence on the record we feel that the submissions made by the learned counsel require examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted.