' This revision petition has been filed to challenge judgment and decree, dated 17-1'-2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby he reversed the judgment and decree, dated 10-3-1996 passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents.
2. The plaintiffs/respondents had filed the suit for a declaration that the registered sale-deeds, dated 16-12-1983 and 4-2-1984 Were illegal, fraudulent, without consideration, void and inoperative qua the rights of the parties. The petitioner resisted the suit and filed' his written statement in the Court, which gave rise to the following issues:--
(i) Whether the suit is not competent in its present form? OPD 1 and 2
(ii) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction?
Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD 1 and '7
(iii) Whether the allegations alleged 'n the plaint are false malicious and defatratory, hence the defendant has right to proceed against the defendant for damages? OPD
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs have not come to this Court with clean hands? OPD
(v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as prayed for? OPD
(vi) Relief." Additional Issue No,5.
' Whether the sale-deeds, dated 16-121983 and dated 4-2-1984 are illegal, fraudulent, without consideration void and inoperative against the rights of the parties and as such both of these sale- deeds are liable to be cancelled. OPD.
' After recording evidence of the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment/ decree, dated 10-3-1996. On appeal, the appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit vide judgment, dated 17-1-2002.
3. I have heard the petitioner's learned counsel at length and perused the material on the record.
The appellate Court has carefully analyzed and appreciated the evidence on the record and rightly held on Issue No,5-A that sale-deed, dated 15-12-1983 Exh. P.3 was the result of fraud as well as without consideration. The Court also held that the contents of Fxh. P.3 were not dictated by the executant rather it was Muhammad Aril, D.W.1 who had instruct-A D.W.2 to exec lite the document. It is noteworthy that Bashir Jaffary D.W.2, the scribe of the deed had for the first time met the executant on 15-12-1983 but he had written the deed on 3-12-1983. Surprisingly the same scribe was got appointed as a Local Commission for recording the statement of the executant. The appellate Court has rightly observed that this practice smacked of mala fides. It is significant that Hamid Hassan defendant No,1 while appearing as D.W.4 admitted in cross-examination that prior to his death his father had cordial relations with all his sons and daughters. From his evidence the appellate Court rightly inferred that there was no reason for Khawaja Ghulam Hassan deceased to deprive his legal heirs of their shares in the disputed property. There is nothing to show that the appellate Court has in any manner misread or ignored the evidence on the record or committed any other material irregularity in passing the impugned judgment and decree. Hence no valid ground is made out to justify interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the C.P.C. Therefore, the petition is dismissed in limine.