' Respondents Nos. 1 to 4, on18-2-1987 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are the owners in possession of the suit land measuring 2 Kanals, 5 Marlas and 7 Sirsais, described in the plaint. It is stated that one Abdul Rehman was the original owner of the suit property, which he sold in favour of Muhammad Hassan, father of said respondents on 13-1-1929 for a consideration of Rs,90 through a sale-deed. This purchase was made by them in pursuance of the settlement of the year 1865.
2. This suit was contested by the petitioner claiming that the new settlement was in process in the year 1890-91 and on the basis thereof, the petitioner is the owner of the suit land, no title could be claimed by the respondents on the basis of earlier settlement or on unregistered sale-deed. Issues were framed; evidence was led and the Trial Court came to the conclusion that respondents were the owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of settlement of the year 1865 and the sale-deed in their favour, the subsequent settlement of 1890-91 was not completed and could not confer any right upon the petitioner. Consequently, the suit of the respondent was decreed on 20- 2-1990. Against the above, petitioner preferred an appeal and the case was remanded on the ground that oath was not given to the witnesses in accordance with law. Again a decree was passed in favour of the respondents on 10-2-1992 and appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 5-6-1993. Hence this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that sale-deed, dated 13-1-1929 on the basis whereof, the respondents claim the ownership, is not a registered document and, thus, it could not be relied upon. It is also contended that the suit was barred by limitation. Both the Courts below have misread the evidence on the record and has misapplied the law in deciding these issues.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents states that as the sale consideration was less than Rs, 100, thus, the deed was not compulsorily Regis table and valid sale could be effected through unregistered document. He has relied upon Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, to contend that presumption was attached to thirty years' old document with regard to its execution and validity, etc.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Undoubtedly, document is thirty years' old and there is presumption of correctness attached to it within the purview of Article 100. Besides, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince me if the sale less than Rs,100 is effected through unregistered document, it does not carry the same legal weight. In law, compulsory registration of the sale-deed has been confined to such transaction, the value whereof is more than Rs, 100, thus, it is quite permissible under the law that any transaction less than the amount mentioned above, could be entered though in writing but without seeking its registration and if the execution of the document in this regard is duly proved, it shall not be disregarded on the ground that the same has not been registered.
' As regards the question of limitation, it may be observed that in the plaint, the respondent has mentioned that cause of action has accrued in their favour a week prior to the filing of the suit when the title to the property was denied to the respondents. Now to say that the suit is time- barred and should have been filed within six years from the sale in favour of respondent is not well conceived. Respondents were at liberty to file suit for declaration as the time when title to the property in question was denied and disputed by petitioner. In any case, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show me as to how the suit from the facts and circumstances of the case, is barred by limitation.
' There is concurrent finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts below regarding the validity of the sale in favour of the respondents, no perversity, error of jurisdiction, material irregularity has been shown calling for interference in my revisional jurisdiction. This petitioner has no merits and is hereby dismissed.