' SH. UAZ NISAR, J.---Leave is sought against the judgment, dated 19-2-1998, of the Lahore High Court. Lahore passed in Civil Revision No.724 of 1992.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Zaka Ullah, predecessor-in-interest of Muhammad Nasir Mehmud petitioners, on 20-12-1972 filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief, against Mst. Rashidan Bibi respondent, in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala, claiming ownership of land measuring 8 Kanals, bearing Khasra No.283, situate in Mauza Sheikh Rajadha, Teshile and District Gujranwala, on the basis of an oral sale said to have been made in his favour by the respondent. At one stage, the suit was decreed ex parte on 11-5-1973, but on the application moved by the respondent the ex parte decree was set aside vide order, dated 19-2-1983. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and framing the necessary issues decreed the suit vide judgment, dated 12-6-1988. Mst. Rashidan Bibi respondent filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, vide judgment and decree, dated 26-4-1992.
3. Feeling aggrieved, Muhammad Nasir Mehmud, etc. Petitioners, herein, filed Civil Revision No.724 of 1992 in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment. Hence this petition. ,
4. It is contended that there has been a gross-misreading of the evidence and the learned Additional District Judge and the High Court failed to controvert the well-considered reasoning recorded by the trial Court. It is further stated that the learned High Court misdirected itself in declaring the transaction as mortgage in the absence of any such plea taken in the written statement. Misrepresentation of document is also alleged.
5. The material controversy in the suit was whether Mst. Rashidan Bibi respondent had sold the suit property to him orally and promised to get the mutation attested in his name on receipt of consideration amounting to Rs.5,500. The learned Appellate Court had held that Rs.5,500 were not received by Mst. Rashidan Bibi as consideration of the sale but as mortgage money. The relevant discussion in this behalf may be advantageously reproduced:-- "From the very plain reading of the plaint itself, it was evident that although the defendant is stated to have received Rs.5,500 as sale price but no such sale was registered as per requirement of Registration Act nor any mutation was mutated for the alleged oral sale. In fact, the plaintiff has alleged an oral sale through the suit reached between the parties on 25-2-1972 whereas as per Exh.P.1 within a period of one month i.e. On 20-3-1972 a mutation of mortgage was entered through Mutation No.89 upon payment of mortgage money Rs.5,500 and this fact was accordingly entered into the Revenue Record and has been brought through Exh.P.1 by the plaintiff himself. There is one copy of record of right in which defendant Rashidan Bibi is owner whereas there is a copy of Khasra Girdawari in which on the basis of Mutation No.89 the possession of the parties changed as mortgagor and the mortgagee and this Khasra Girdawari has been produced by the plaintiff himself in the evidence. It is admitted fact that plaintiff is ex-Patwari and he as such was very well- aware of the Revenue documents. So, the plaintiff on the basis of the documentary evidence has brought no evidence in order to controvert 'his own document Exh.P.1 and the Khasra Girdawari placed on record showing the Mutation No.89 mutated on the basis of mortgage deed entered between the parties. There is no evidence produced by the plaintiff in order to controvert the public document about which he has full knowledge and the possession was also delivered in accordance with the document produced by the plaintiff on record as mortgagee. It is cardinal principle of evidence that one may depose falsely while appearing in the witness-box but document cannot tell' lie. So, following the aforesaid principle, it is evident from the perusal of the documentary evidence on record that in fact there was deed of mortgage between the parties on the alleged date and there was no sale-deed nor any mutation to that effect, if any, had been carried out on 20-3-1972. The Revenue Record as prepared goes against the very pleadings of the plaintiff himself. So, in order to controvert the documentary evidence, the plaintiff has brought no independent witness to controvert sanction of Exh.D.1 Mutation No.89, which was duly incorporated in record of rights duly exhibited as Exh.P.1. The contents of Mutation No.89 duly rebut the very allegation of the plaintiff about the sale and this fact as per Revenue Record prepared at the instance of the parties to the mortgage and the matter was reported as per column of the mutation by the parties themselves on 16-2-1972 for getting the same sanctioned. So, the mutation was sanctioned finally on 20-3-1972 on payment of mortgage price Rs.5,500 through Exh.D.1. The status of the parties to the suit is further reproduced in record of rights, the copies of which have been placed on record through Exh.D.2 and Exh.D.3. The documentary evidence placed on record including the reliable evidence of record of rights, the plaintiff is belied since no sale is proved nor the same is established by the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff in order to controvert the Exh.D.1 which was entered with the mutual consent of the parties."
' The above filing came into consideration before the learned High Court in the revision filed by Muhammad Nasir Mahmud and other petitioner, and was rejected. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that it had considered all the assertions raised on behalf of the petitioners and dealt with the same by advancing sound and cogent reasons. The relevant paragraph of the judgment may be reproduced to show fuller application of mind by the learned High Court to each and every point raised with regard to the petitioner's contention that the respondent had agreed to sell the suit land to him for a consideration of Rs.5,500 and that it was not a mortgage transaction:- - "The Appellate Court has carefully perused the material on the record and rightly held that the alleged claim of the petitioners regarding oral sale of land in their favour was not proved and that the copy of Mutation No.889 sanctioned on 20-3-1972, produced by the petitioners as Exh.P.1 (and by the respondent as Exh.D.l) proves that the nature of transaction was mortgage. The subsequent Jamabandi Exh.D.2 and Khasra Girdawari Exh.D.3 also prove that the relationship between the contesting respondent and the present petitioner was that of a mortgagor and mortgagee. As mentioned by the Appellate Court, Zakaullah, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was an ex- Patwari and was well aware of the revenue documents. Had any mistake been committed he would have at once approached the Revenue Officer for rectifying the same. He accepted correctness of the mutation by not raising any objection to the same which was duly incorporated in subsequent Jamabandis. A presumption of truth attaches to the entries made in the Jamabandi.
Therefore, the Appellate Court had rightly relied on the Jamabandi Exh.D.2 for the year 1985-86 and Khasra Girdawari Exh.D.3 while holding that the status of the parties before the Court was that of a mortgagor and mortgagee and that the plaintiff's claim of the alleged oral sale was not established on the record. There is nothing to show that the Appellate Court had misappreciated or misread the material on the record while recording the said finding. In cases in which findings of Courts below are at variance, ordinarily the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Court are to be preferred. In the case of Madan Gopal and 4 others v. Maran Bepari and 3 others (PLD 1969 SC 617), it was held:-- 'If the finding of fact reached by the first Appellate Court is at variance with that of the trial Court, the former will ordinarily prevail, although it would not possess the same value or sanctity as a concurrent finding by the lower Appellate Court will be immune from interference in second appeal only if it is found to be substantiated by evidence on record and is supported by logical reasoning, duly taking note of the reasons adduced by the first Court which have been disfavoured in the contrary finding. The fmding being at variance with that of the trial Judge, the two will naturally come in for comparison for their comparative merits in the light of the facts of the case and the reasons on which the two different findings have respectively proceeded. "
' In the case of Muhammad Sadiq and 2 others (cited by the respondent's learned counsel) a Division Bench of this Court had held that although the Courts below had differed on the kind of transaction yet in the absence of grounds specified in sections 100 and 115 of C.P.C., it was the finding of the lower Appellate Court which will be held binding and conclusive. In the case of Ghulam Ali (also cited by the respondent's learned counsel) it was held that a finding on a question of fact reached in the first appeal on the basis of evidence on the record was not open to be reversed in revision even if a contrary view was possible on the same evidence. I respectfully follow the rule laid down in the above-quoted judgments and held that in the present case the Appellate Court had properly appreciated the evidence on the record and rightly recorded finding of fact on Issue No.3 in favour of the respondents."
' In view of the above discussion, we do not find any substance in the petition and dismiss the same.