By this single judgment I propose to dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. l1, 12, 13 and 14 of 1992 as the same have similar facts and are against the same respondents.
2. In Civil Revision No. 11 of 1992, Muhammad Imran petitioner herein, brought a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land bearing Khata No. 105/211, Khasra No. 195 measuring 11 Kanals 18 Marlas on the basis of purchase from Said Akbar respondent and that entries in the revenue record regarding mortgage are incorrect and ineffective' against his rights. In the alternative he prayed that he is in possession of the aforesaid land as mortgagee for more than 60 years therefore the rights of the defendants has extinguished. It was asserted in the plaint that the property was mortgaged vide Mutation No. 1056 attested on 30-7-1944 for Rs.600 and thereafter he verbally sold the land to the plaintiffs by receiving additional amount of Rs.400 and executed a memorandum dated 2-12-1945 acknowledging the sale. In 1945 the defendant left for Bombay, therefore mutation of ownership could not be attested. After his return he filed a suit for redemption of the land. Since 60 years has elapsed, hence the right of defendant has extinguished and he has become entitled to the suit land. The suit was contested by the respondents both on legal and factual premises and in view of the pleadings of the parties 10 issues were framed.
Thereafter the parties led their respective evidence on the assessment whereof the learned Civil Judge-II, Mansehra vide judgment and decree, dated 17-3-1990 dismissed the suit whereagainst the appeal filed by the petitioner also met the same fate vide judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Mansehra, dated 26-11-199.
3. In Civil Revision No. 12 of 1992, Abdur Rehman and Muhammad Ifran, predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners brought a suit against defendants for declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land bearing Khasra No.473 measuring 11 Kanals 19 Marlas and that entries in the revenue record regarding ownership of defendant-respondent No.1 and that of mortgage in the name of defendant-respondent No.2 are wrong, illegal and ineffective against his rights. In the alternative they also prayed for the permanent injunction, Suit was contested by defendant respondent No.1 while defendant-respondent No.2 conceded the suit. In view of the pleadings of the parties 8 issues were framed. Thereafter the parties led their evidence on the assessment whereof the learned Civil Judge-II, Mansehra vide his judgment and decree, dated 17-3-1990 dismissed the suit whereagainst the appeal was filed by the petitioner which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Mansehra, dated 26-1 1-1991.
4. In Civil Revision No.13 of 1992 Muhammad Iqbal, petitioner herein, brought a suit against defendants for specific performance of sale agreement, dated 24-6-1947 stating therein that defendant-respondent No.1 being owner of the suit land entered into sale agreement with the petitioner in lieu of Rs.4,500 and received the sale consideration. Thereafter the defendants- respondent No.1 left for India and came back to Pakistan about 6 months ago when he lodged a suit against defendants-respondents Nos. 2 to 4 for redemption of mortgage. Defendants Nos. l and 5 contested the suit while defendants Nos.2 to 4 admitted the claim of the plaintiff. In view of the pleadings of the parties 9 issues were framed. Thereafter the parties led their respective evidence on the assessm ent whereof the learned Civil Judge-II, Mansehra vide his judgment and decree, dated 17-3-1990 dismissed the suit whereagainst the appeal filed by the petitioner also met the same fate vide judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Mansehra, dated 26-11-1991.
5. In Civil Revision No. 14 of 1992, Mst Duri and others petitioners herein, brought a suit for specific performance of sale agreement, dated 21-6-1946 in respect of land bearing Khata No.101/204, Khasra No.478 measuring 11 Kanals 4 Marlas situate in village estate of Kothar, Thesil and District Mansehra. In the alternative permanent injunction was also sought. According to the plaint, defendant-respondent being owner of the suit land entered into a sale agreement, dated 21-6- 1946 with predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff in lieu of Rs.900 who received the sale consideration and transferred the possession of the land; that thereafter he left for India and on his return he brought a suit of ejectment and produce against the plaintiff. Defendant---respondent contested the suit denying the alleged sale agreement and its genuineness. He stated that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as mortgagees and a suit for redemption/restitution has been filed against them. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to as many as 9 issues. Thereafter the parties led their respective evidence and on the assessment whereof the learned Civil Judge-II, Mansehra vide his judgment and decree, dated 17-3-1990 dismissed the suit whereagainst the appeal filed by the petitioner herein also met the same fate vide judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Mansehra, dated 26-11-1991. Hence the present Civil Revision.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. It is pertinent to note that in all the suits plaintiffs have based their claims on almost similar types of documents which were neither stamped, registered nor admissible in law and they failed to prove the execution thereof.
7. In Civil Suit No. 33/1 of 1985, out of which Civil Revision No. 11 of 1992 has arisen, Ghulam Rabbani (P.W.3) in cross-examination stated that formerly he was appointed attorney by the plaintiff but the same was revoked later on and then Muhammad Iqbal was appointed as attorney, who appeared as such as P.W.4 and R.W.1 but his power of attorney Exh.PW.4/1 is not available on the original file, as such his testimony cannot be attached any credence. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded this fact and in view thereof did not press this revision petition, which even otherwise, is devoid of any merit as the petitioner's claim has not been proved through any evidence. According to the revenue record the respondent has been recorded as mortgagor while petitioner father has been recorded as mortgagee which has been admitted by P. W .4/R. W .1 but till the execution of the alleged deed Exh. R. W .1 / 1, which has not at all been proved besides being unstamped and unregistered which appears to be dubious, forged and manipulated one.
8. In Suit No.13/1 of 1985, out of which Civil Revision No.12 of 1992 has arisen, Muhammad Irfan (P.W.5) appeared in support of the suit but he could not substantiate his claim. The so-called deed Exh.PW2/1 which is unstamped and unregistered and has no legal value, could not be proved to have been executed by the defendant No. 1. Its bare look would show that the same is manufactured one and in order to give an impression of its being old, the same was water-stained on some portions to spread the ink. The thumb-impressions on the other side of the document suggest that thumb-impressions on both sides of the plain paper were affixed prior to scribing the contents which rendered the document forged and fabricated.
9. In Suit No.257/1 of 1985, out of which Civil Revision No.13 of 1992 has arisen, Muhammad Iqbal who master-minded the whole stratagem, appeared as P.W.2 who could not prove the chit Exh.P.W.2/1 by any evidence. Such a chit, which is unstamped and unregistered, whereby land was purchased and thus in fact is a sale document, cannot confer any title on the so-called transferee. It may be noted that if mortgage transaction in favour of the father and uncle of Muhammad Iqbal could be registered two months prior to the so-called chit why the sale in his favour could not be properly executed and registered.
10. In Suit No. 256/1 of 1985, out of which Civil Revision No. 14 of 1992 has arisen, the statement of Zarin Shah (P.W.2) attorney of the plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 is very interesting. He in the cross- examination conceded that whatever he stated, it was tutored to him by Nobat Shah, late husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3. Most of the questions he could not answer as he could not recollect whether answer to such a question had been provided to him by Nobat Shah or not. In this case too, water was used to make the rotton paper Exh.P.W.2/2 to look more old. The date 21-6-1946 also seems to have been inserted therein later on as the ink used in writing of the body and the ink used in writing the date does not seem to be the same. This document like the others is also forged, fictitious and manipulated.
11. In all the cases the land had been mortgaged by the respondent to the respective petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest but they by taking advantage of his absence from the country attempted to grab his property through the designed, fake and fabricated documents of similar character, which did not fulfil the legal requirements, hence the same could not confer any title on the so-called transferees. The unregistered dubious documents, whose execution has been denied by the executor, they had to be proved in terms of Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat (corresponding section 68 of the Repealed Evidence Act), even if they were 30 years' old as the presumption is only available to genuine documents which too is rebuttable. Under sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act as amended by Registration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1962, the said documents could not create any title in favour of the petitioners, as they required compulsory registration and the petitioners on the basis of such papers could not claim any legal title as owners of the land.
12. It is pertinent to note that all the suits were filed by the plaintiffs petitioners or their predecessor- in-interest after the institution of the suits/applications for the redemption of the land by the respondent as a counter--blast. The claim of the petitioners that respondent's rights in the property have extinguished due to the expiry of 60 years is without foundation as in none of the case 60 years had passed when the redemption was sought. The suits for specific performance were time-barred and deserved dismissal on this score as well. The plaintiffs lawfully failed to substantiate their claim through any cogent evidence.
The concurrent findings arrived at by both the Courts are well founded and well reasoned and do not suffer from misreading or non-reading of the evidence on the record, hence no exception can be taken. Consequently all the four revision petitions are. Dismissed with costs throughout.
13. From the facts and circumstances, all the suits seemed to be false and vexatious and were so designed to grab the respondent's property on the basis of ' waste rotten papers' whereby they caused the respondent to undergo long agony, as such he is entitled to the grant of compensatory costs of Rs.25,000 under section 35-A, C.P.C. Enforced through N.-W.F.P. (Enforcement of Certain Provisions of Law) Act, 1989 (Act II of 1989). The respondent shall be paid the said compensatory costs by the plaintiffs of all the four revision petitions, collectively.