' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---This appeal with the leave of the Court calls in question the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby the revision petition filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Additional District Judge decreeing the suit of Mst. Rehmon, .
The predecessor-in-interest of the respondent by reversing the judgment of the Civil Judge, was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts are that Mst. Rehmon, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, filed a suit for declaration claiming that she was the owner of suit land and that Ghulam Muhammad father of the appellant fraudulently got a sale-deed dated 17-7-1980 executed in his favour, which was illegal, void and ineffective. Permanent injunction was also sought against the appellant. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit by judgment dated 21-5-1991 holding that the registered sale-deed dated 17-7-1980 was a valid document. The respondent challenged it in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, who allowed it and set aside the finding of the learned Civil Judge and the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent. Revision application filed by the appellant was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence has been misread and misappreciated. It was further contended that the sale-deed was a registered document attested by witnesses and that the consideration was proved to have been paid. The admitted position seems to be that Mst. Rehmon was a widow and old lady aged about 65 to 70 years. She had a son who had been murdered. Ghulam Muhammad, the father of the appellant was a friend of her husband and he offered to assist her in prosecuting the case. According to the respondent, Ghulam Muhammad proposed that land be given to him on lease and accordingly the suit land was leased out to him at the rate of Rs,1,000 per acre for five years. For that purpose Ghulam Muhammad took Mst. Rehmon to Chichawatni and got a document executed which she thought to be a lease deed, but later it transpired that Ghulam Muhammad had fraudulently got the sale- deed executed in his favour. Payment of consideration was also denied. From the evidence it emerges that Mst. Rehmon was identified by Abdur Rashid, the Lambardar, but he has not been examined.
One of the attesting witnesses has been examined, but he was not related to Mst. Rehmon. Ghulam Muhammad being a friend of the late husband of Mst. Rehmon and having attained the confidence of the old lady by promising to provide money from time to time for prosecuting the murder case of her son, exercised influence and dominance over the illiterate and old lady. In such circumstances, it was necessary that the appellant should have proved that Mst. Rehmon had the opportunity to have the counsel, advice and assistance of her near relations and that she had executed the sale-deed of her free-will and consent. All these factors are lacking. It is well-settled that where any sale-deed is executed by an illiterate lady, it is for the purchaser to establish that she had executed it of her own free will under independent advice from her relations and fully knowing the nature of the transaction. The witnesses produced by the appellant do not prove these facts. So far consideration is concerned, only Rs,1,000 was paid befoie the Registrar while Rs,29,000 is alleged to have been paid to Mst. Rehmon from time to time for which no receipt was obtained.
All these circumstances make the entire transaction shady and suspicious. The learned counsel has not been able to point out how the ingredients necessary for proving the bona fide transaction with an illiterate lady of advanced age as laid down in Mst. Janat Bibi v. Sikander Ali and others (PLD 1990 SC 642), Mst. Badshah Begum v. Ghulam Rasool and others (PLD 1991 SC 1140) and Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1) have been satisfied. The learned Additional District Judge in his judgment has discussed the evidence and while appreciating it came to the correct conclusion that Mst. Rehmon was not aware of the contents of the sale-deed and that the cosideration was also not proved to have been paid to her. In these circumstances, we dismiss the appeal with costs.