ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J. ---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 12-12-1995 dismissing their revision petition directed against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the respondents Mst.
Maqsooda Bibi and Mst. Saleem Khatoon, both real sisters, brought a suit against their step-father Abdul Ghani (who was also their uncle) for a declaration to the effect that the transaction of sale embodied in Mutation No.501, dated 20-4-1963 was fake and fraudulent and was, therefore, inoperative qua their rights. Case of the respondents was that they never made the sale in favour of Abdul Ghani nor had they ever appeared before any Revenue Officer for the purpose of attestation of mutation. It appears that Mst. Saleem Khatoon respondent made a statement in trial Court withdrawing from the suit with the result that she was transposed as a defendant and she then filed a concessional written statement admitting the impugned sale. Later on, she sought cancellation of her written statement alleging that she had not engaged Mehr Nizam-ud-Din Sial, Advocate and fictitious written statement had been filed on her behalf. Her plea was not accepted by the trial Court. The suit was contested by Abdul Ghani and after his death by his legal heirs, the present petitioners.
3. Learned trial Court after framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not sold her land to Abdul Ghani; she had not received any consideration from him nor had she appeared before the Revenue Officer in connection with the mutation in dispute. Suit of the plaintiff-respondent was accordingly decreed by the trial Court. Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge and same was the fate of their revision in the High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court repelling the petitioners' contention that transaction of sale stood proved by the evidence of Tehsildar (D.W.2), Allah Rakha, Lambardar (D.W.5) and Muhammad Shahbaz (D.W.7) coupled with the confessional statement of Mst. Saleem Khatoon held in para-4 of the order "The case, of the petitioner is based upon the evidence of D.W.2, D.W.5 and D.W.7. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute that D.W.2 and D.W.5 were not known to the parties. As such their evidence, in my view is of no value. As regards D.W.7 (Shahbaz) who came forward to prove the passing of consideration, did not join the process of attestation of mutation. These circumstances react against the credibility of that witness. On the material available, the learned to Courts below were eminently correct in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners had not proved the transaction of sale embodied in Mutation No.501, dated 20-4-1963. The challenged conclusions are essentially of facts and have been reached by the Courts below on the sound appraisement of evidence and are in consonance with the provisions of law. These conclusions are, therefore, not exceptionable in revisional jurisdiction".
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has been able to point out any flaw or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court as would warrant interference by this Court. The learned Judge in the High Court was right in holding that the findings/conclusions of the Courts below agitated before him were essentially of facts which were recorded after sound appraisal of evidence keeping in view the relevant law and, therefore, these findings were not open to interference in revisional jurisdiction. It may pertinently be observed that the learned Additional District Judge found on evidence that Mst. Maqsooda plaintiff is an illiterate and Pardah-observing lady who "never entered into a contract to sell the suit property in favour of late Abdul Ghani nor appeared before the Revenue Officer" and her rights were sought to be usurped through the impugned mutation based on fraud. Law regarding the disposition of property by Pardahnashin ladies which is equally applicable to illiterate and ignorant women is fairly well-settled that it is for the person claiming the benefit of such disposition to establish affirmatively by the strongest and most satisfactory evidence that the transaction was real, genuine and bona fide. See Janat Bibi v.
Sikandar Ali and others (PLD 1990 SC 642). Viewed in the light of this principle, the learned Courts below have rightly repelled the impugned transaction as not proved and their concurrent findings warrant no interference. This petition has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.